Thoughts For The Week By Ron Owen of Owen Guns. September 2019.

Thoughts For The Week.

Keep Your Powder Dry.

First of all let me put it on the record, I am not anti Chinese, I spent a lot of good times in China during the 1980s and early 1990s. As a student of military history I visited the Great Wall in several places, shot on their rifle ranges,visited military museums and the Terracotta Army in Xi’an. I have long standing friendships that I value with Chinese friends, my only problem with China is that their communist leadership and corrupt political system has taken a path of expansionism and will not turn back from it unless it has a cataclysmic change in leadership. Napoleon Bonaparte said “China is a sleeping giant. Let her sleep, for when she wakes she will shake the world.” and it will take the rest of the world to stop her from shaking the world to death. This week US President Donald Trump has welcomed Prime Minister Scott Morrison to the White House for a historic state visit. Asked whether he was only concerned about trade with China or if he saw the country as a strategic threat, he said: “Obviously China is a threat to the world in a sense because they are building their military faster than anybody and frankly they are using US money.”

China Increasing War Budget.

Scott Morrison, will be having a quiet word with President Trump seeking ‘quid pro quo’ assurances that if Australia joins the USA coalition against Iran, that when the chips are down with China that America will take over China to save Australia. The answer will of course be in the affirmative, but when the chips are down and a US President Trump or worse Biden, or worse Warren has to make a choice of going nuclear to save Australia knowing that China’s nuclear missiles will certainly take out Seattle, Hawaii, San Francisco and Los Angles killing a 100 million Americans to save 20 million Australians. That sacrifice scenario becomes even less likely as even if China and North Korea were wiped out, what would remain of the USA, theoretically the East Coast would not be able to withstand an attack from Russia, so even if Russia did not feel disposed to get involved it would be the last remaining World Power which would then dominate Europe and the World.

Weapons that could be used in the Pacific wipeout war. Notice Australia did not get a mention.

So saving Australia from China by America is highly unlikely, even though America is following the same formula to create a war, as President Franklin D. Roosevelt did prior to World War Two. At that time similar to China today, Japans Naval power was beginning to dwarf the USAs Pacific Fleet, Japan needed raw materials and living space from China, President F.D. Roosevelt knew that if Japan succeeded in conquering all of China then it would be an unstoppable super power so he imposed a oil and fuel ban on Japan unless it withdrew from China. Faced with having a few months supply left Japan decided to try to sink the US Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbour and struck south to capture the Burmah Oil and Seria Field ,Borneo Oil, ( Brunei) and the living space, food and resources rich continent of Australia.

Due to Japan not succeeding to win the Battle of the Coral Sea, and suffering huge losses in Burma and the Kokoda Trail Australia remained a large base on the southern flank of Japan which America was able to re-enforce. So if Japan had struck South attacked Australia first, and not attacked the USA at Pearl Harbour, and not tried to take India through Siam, the USA would have stayed isolationist with the Monroe Doctrine and Japan with all its force concentrated in the South would have won Australia.

The Spratley Islands, Chinese Bases are really close to the Brunei oilfields.

Once it consolidated Australia’s resources they could chose who to attack next. We can be assured that present day China will see the move of President Trump to keep applying tariffs denying China from the worlds largest market, like “Déjà Vu”. They well know that manufactured exports are their only profit makers, every other aspect of their economy makes huge losses, housing, food production, (they now have to import food again) Fuel,(oil, gas and coal have to be imported) without their exports, without foreign exchange to pay for imports, without their resources (food, and fuel) the future finishes in bankruptcy and starvation. They are being forced into making a decision, either to withdraw contract, returning to their past position, or to attack and like Germany in WW2 gain Lebensraum (‘living space’) in order to survive.. We can only hope that Scott Morrison is aware of this and is chewing Mr Trumps ear asking him to leave a way out. Even if he gets a promise, I am doubtful if it will ever be honoured as Trump needs to close the Chinese exports off so the United States can re-build its industry, give jobs to the voters to gain re-election.

In my August Bulletin “Thoughts of the Week” to summarise I explained Australia lack of an adequate defence force, our lack of Defence Industries, the scenario of China building an Island base at Long Island, (Chesterfield Islands) and then moving on to Lord Howe Island. The inability and lack of interest for any other nation to move them. (As with the South China Sea Spratley Islands, the USA has not stepped in to throw China off the Islands that the Philippines claims as its territory) The probability that China dominating all of Australia’s sea and air ways would blockade, preventing the importation of fuel, or manufacturing materials, in less then 25 days diesel fuel and petrol would run out, food would not be delivered to the shops, Australia the land of plenty would starve. Australian politicians would surrender, do a deal and fly to the South of France. The Australian population being superfluous to the Chinese requirements would die out.

The only consolation would be the thought that Australia’s left wing unionists, media and greenies would finally find out the reality of Communism, as they would be the first to have their body parts and organs sold off. The Muslim Shari law clerics would soon follow them. The skilled workers who produced things would survive a little longer.

This Bulletin goes out to a mail list with 10,000 subscribers about 20 or 30 complimented me on my efforts to awaken Australia to pending disaster, the rest either did not read my article and just looked at the adverts, or read it and did not accept it. They may think that it is a one sided debate, maybe, but here are a few words from the Chinese perspective.

It is hard to find the Chinese perspective as the Chinese governments suppresses the truth and keeps an unyielding grip of silence on its citizens within and without the nations borders. I was in Beijing at the beginning of June 1989 and then returned a week after the Tiananmen Square Massacre.

I was staying at the Beijing Hotel which was in East Tiananmen, it was amazing to see a million peaceful people at one time in the square. I returned home and within a week there were tank tracks and huge burn marks on the square as though flame throwers had incinerated them. I was shocked how a country could treat its own citizens and amazed at how quickly it was hushed up.

This stranglehold means that, even today, relatively little information is available about the Tiananmen Square massacre. However, British ambassador to China, Sir Alan Donald wrote a secret diplomatic cable around 24 hours after the massacre, which the British Government only declassified in 2017. The cable reveals stunning information previously unknown to most of the world, and most likely, China itself.

According to Donald, at least 10,000 people were killed. One of the Chinese army units was apparently so vicious that the former ambassador described them as “primitives” in his document. The cable provides a hitherto unprecedented look at what really occurred that night and day. Donald’s cable has since found a new home in the U.K. National Archives. The former ambassador was an eye witness to most of it from the rooftop of the Embassy but explained that the details of his report stemmed from personal conversations from a “good friend” in China’s State Council, the government’s cabinet, who spoke to Donald in confidence.

Donald said his source “has previously proved reliable and was careful to separate fact from speculation and rumor,” making his recounting of the events of June 3 and June 4 highly credible.

Donald’s cable to London described the “atrocities” against several thousand pro-democracy protesters as being undertaken by the 27th Army of Shanxi Province. He called this truculent group of soldiers “60 % illiterate” and “primitives.”

According to Donald and his trusted source, however, the local Beijing troops that entered Tiananmen Square prior to the 27th Army were unarmed. The people gave them flowers and expected them to stay and protest with them. This was an initial attempt to disperse the massive group of protesters without violence, as most were students, unarmed, and non-violent.

Unfortunately, this approach rapidly came to an end.
“The 27 Army APCs (armored personnel carriers) opened fire on the crowd before running over them,” Donald wrote in his cable. “APCs ran over troops and civilians at 65kph (40 miles per hour).” He explained that even though the CCP had provided protestors with a warning, even this small amount of leeway was underhanded, a lie, and viciously broken.”

“Students understood they were given one hour to leave square, but after five minutes APCs attacked,” Donald said. “The group of protesters remained steadfast, even in the face of annihilation. Shots rang out, innocents were struck, and people began to die. Nonetheless — there was power in numbers, and solidarity that allowed them to find courage, and thousands joined hands as bullets flew”.

“Students linked arms but were mown down,” wrote Donald. “APCs then ran over the bodies time and time again to make, quote ‘pie’ unquote, and remains collected by bulldozer.”

As if this wasn’t atrocious enough, the government’s criminal and brutal activity that day got even worse. With no regard for the families of these victims, not to mention their identities, what was left of them was disposed of, in an unspeakably callous manner.” Remains incinerated and then hosed down drains,” Donald wrote.

According to Donald, the violent attacks stemmed from a substantial portion of China’s State Council that was afraid of civil war breaking out. The nationwide tides seemed to be turning and those in power would certainly not benefit from a freer populous. Thus, clamping down forcefully on any kind of dissent was vital to their interests. On top of that, the recently declassified cable stated that the 27th Army was called into action that day specifically because of its disregard for anything but orders. The troops were “the most reliable and obedient,” Donald explained. “The 27 Army was ordered to spare no one,” he wrote. “Wounded girl students begged for their lives but were bayoneted. A three-year-old girl was injured, but her mother was shot as she went to her aid, as were six others.”

The diplomat’s sources also told him that “snipers shot many civilians on balconies, street sweepers etc for target practice.” The declassified document also claimed that this excessive force continued even after the first wave of killings were completed. “A 1,000 survivors were told they could escape but were then mown down by specially prepared MG (machine gun) positions,” wrote Donald. “Army ambulances who attempted to give aid were shot up, as was a Sino-Japanese hospital ambulance.”

“With medical crew dead, a wounded driver attempted to ram attackers but was blown to pieces by an anti-tank weapon. “Donald’s declassified cable even claimed that troops killed one of their own officers. ” A 27 Army officer was shot dead by his comrades, apparently because he faltered,” said Donald. “Troops explained they would be shot if they hadn’t shot the officer.”

Of course, Chinese state TV was painting an entirely different picture. Before the army was deployed to wipe out protestors, government television was repeatedly broadcasting the following claims:

“Tonight a serious counter-revolutionary rebellion took place. Thugs frenziedly attacked People’s Liberation Army troops, seizing weapons, erecting barricades, beating soldiers and officers in an attempt to overthrow the government of the People’s Republic of China.”

“For many days, the People’s Liberation Army has exercised restraint and now must resolutely counteract the rebellion. All those who refuse to listen to reason must take full responsibility for their actions and their consequences.”

The Chinese Red Cross estimated the death toll to be around 2,700 people on June 4, 1989. While this is far less conservative than the Chinese Governments preposterous count of 200-300, it’s far lower than Donald’s account, which ended with a stunning figure.

“Minimum estimate of civilian dead 10,000,” the final sentence of his cable read.

Sir Alan Donald’s now-declassified assessment of the Tiananmen Square massacre and the resulting death toll aligns completely with a confidential U.S. government file reported on in 2014. This document quoted a Chinese military source and said the CCP’s own internal figures estimated the body count to be 10,454 people. Chinese friends of mine at the time told me that over 10,000 were killed and over 10,000 were arrested and they worked for the Chinese Police (Jin Ang Corporation)

General Chi Haotian Defence Minister

Who was responsible for organising this massacre? I have asked and the only answers I have received have named General Chi Haotian as the director of the military’s enforcement of martial law in Beijing to suppress the protests in Tiananmen Square. As at the time he was Chief of Staff he instructed the commanding officers of the Beijing, Shenyang, and Jinan Military Districts to “finalize the name list of every group army division scheduled to advance into Beijing and their exact times of departure and arrival, as well as details regarding primary duties“, according to the “Daily Report” (Meiri yibao) from the Central Military Commission Office, dated 19 May 1989. This military buildup removed the local military force and introduced the external forces who took part in the Beijing massacre, which took place on 3rd and 4th June and led to his promotion to Minister of Defence until 2001.  His perspective on China’s future plans were specified in a his speech, text below

By Chief of General Staff and Vice -Chairman China’s Military Commission Comrade Chi Haotian, December, 2005 to top officers and generals. This is his Modus Operandi.

“Comrades, I’m very excited today, because the large-scale online survey by sina.com that was done for us showed that our next generation is quite promising and our Party’s cause will be carried on. In answering the question, “Will you shoot at women, children and prisoners of war,” more than 80 per cent of the respondents answered in the affirmative, exceeding by far our expectations. Today I’d like to focus on why we asked sina.com to conduct this online survey among our people. My speech today is a sequel to my speech last time, during which I started with a discussion of the issue of the three islands (Taiwan, Diaoyu Islands) and the (Spratley Islands) and mentioned that 20 years of the idyllic theme of ‘peace and development’ had come to an end, and concluded that modernization under the saber is the only option for China’s next phase. I also mentioned we have a vital stake overseas. The central issue of this survey appears to be whether one should shoot at women, children and prisoners of war, but its real significance goes far beyond that. Ostensibly, our intention is mainly to figure out what the Chinese people’s attitude towards war is: If these future soldiers do not hesitate to kill even non combatants, they’ll naturally be doubly ready and ruthless in killing combatants. Therefore, the responses to the survey questions may reflect the general attitude people have towards war. We wanted to know: If China’s global development will necessitate massive deaths in enemy countries; will our people endorse that scenario? Will they be for or against it? The fact is, our ‘development’ refers to the great revitalization of the Chinese nation, which, of course, is not limited to the land we have now but also includes the whole world. As everybody knows, according to the views propagated by the Western scholars, humanity as a whole originated from one single mother in Africa. Therefore no race can claim racial superiority. However, according to the research conducted by most Chinese scholars, the Chinese are different from other races on earth. We did not originate in Africa. Instead, we originated independently in the land of China. Therefore, we can rightfully assert that we are the product of cultural roots of more than a million years, civilization and progress of more than ten thousand years, an ancient nation of five thousand years, and a single Chinese entity of two thousand years. This is the Chinese nation that calls itself ‘descendants of Yan and Huang.’ During our long history, our people have disseminated throughout the Americas and the regions along the Pacific Rim, and they became Indians in the Americas and the East Asian ethnic groups in the South Pacific. We all know that on account of our national superiority, during the thriving and prosperous Tang Dynasty our civilization was at the peak of the world. We were the centre of the world civilization, and no other civilization in the world was comparable to ours. Later on, because of our complacency, narrow- mindedness, and the self-enclosure of our own country, we were surpassed by Western civilization, and the centre of the world shifted to the West. In reviewing history, one may ask: Will the centre of the world civilization shift back to China? Actually, Comrade Liu Huaqing made similar points in early 1980’s Based on an historical analysis, he pointed out that the centre of world civilization is shifting. It shifted from the East to Western Europe and later to the United States; now it is shifting back to the East. Therefore, if we refer to the 19th Century as the British Century and the 20th century as the American Century, then the 21st Century will be the Chinese Century! (Wild applause fills the auditorium.) Our Chinese people are wiser than the Germans because, fundamentally, our race is superior to theirs. As a result, we have a longer history, more people, and larger land area. On this basis, our ancestors left us with the two most essential heritages, which are atheism and great unity. It was Confucius, the founder of our Chinese culture, who gave us these heritages. These two heritages determined that we have a stronger ability to survive than the West. That is why the Chinese race has been able to prosper for so long. We are destined ‘not to be buried by either heaven or earth’ no matter how severe the natural, man-made, and national disasters. This is our advantage. Take response to war as an example. The reason that the United States remains today is that it has never seen war on its mainland. Once its enemies aim at the mainland, the enemies would have already reached Washington before its congress finishes debating and authorizes the president to declare war. But for us, we don’t waste time on these trivial things. Maybe you have now come to understand why we recently decided to further promulgate atheism. If we let theology from the West into China and empty us from the inside, if we let all Chinese people listen to God and follow God, who will obediently listen to us and follow us? If the common people don’t believe Comrade Hu Jintao is a qualified leader, begin to question his authority, and want to monitor him, if the religious followers in our society question why we are leading God in churches, can our Party continue to rule China??

(Lebensraum (‘living space’) in order to survive.)

The first pressing issue facing us is living space. This is the biggest focus of the revitalization of the Chinese race. In my last speech, I said that the fight over basic living resources (including land and ocean) is the source of the vast majority of wars in history. This may change in the information age, but not fundamentally. Our per capita resources are much less than those of Germany’s back then. In addition, economic development in the last twenty-plus years had a negative impact, and climates are rapidly changing for the worse. Our resources are in very short supply. The environment is severely polluted, especially that of soil, water, and air. Not only our ability to sustain and develop our race, but even its survival is gravely threatened, to a degree much greater than faced Germany back then.  Anybody who has been to Western countries knows that their living space is much better than ours. They have forests alongside the highways, while we hardly have any trees by our streets. Their sky is often blue with white clouds, while our sky is covered with a layer of dark haze. Their tap water is clean enough for drinking, while even our ground water is so polluted that it can’t be drunk without filtering. They have few people in the streets, and two or three people can occupy a small residential building; in contrast our streets are always crawling with people, and several people have to share one room. Many years ago, there was a book titled Yellow Catastrophes. It said that, due to our following the American style of consumption, our limited resources would no longer support the population and society would collapse once our population reaches 1.3 billion. Now our population has already exceeded this limit, and we are now relying on imports to sustain our nation. It’s not that we haven’t paid attention to this issue. The Ministry of Land Resources is specialized in this issue. But we must understand that the term ‘living space’ (lebenstraum) is too closely related to Nazi Germany. The reason we don’t want to discuss this too openly is to avoid the West’s association of us with Nazi Germany, which could in turn reinforce the view that China is a threat. Therefore, in our emphasis on He Xin’s new theory, ‘Human Rights are just living rights’ we only talk about ‘living’ but not ‘space’ so as to avoid using the term ‘living space.’ From the perspective of history, the reason that China is faced with the issue of living space is because Western countries have developed ahead of Eastern countries. Western countries established colonies all around the world, therefore giving themselves an advantage on the issue of living space. To solve this problem, we must lead the Chinese people outside of China, so that they can develop outside of China. Would the United States allow us to go out to gain new living space? First, if the United States is firm in blocking us, it is hard for us to do anything significant to Taiwan and some other countries! Second, even if we could snatch some land from Taiwan, Vietnam, India, or even Japan, how much more living space can we get? Very trivial! Only countries like the United States, Canada and Australia have the vast land to serve our need for mass colonization. Therefore, solving the ‘issue of America’ is the key to solving all other issues. First, this makes it possible for us to have many people migrate there and even establish another China under the same leadership of the CCP. America was originally discovered by the ancestors of the yellow race, but Columbus gave credit to the White race. We the descendants of the Chinese nation are ENTITLED to the possession of the land! It is historical destiny that China and United States will come into unavoidable confrontation on a narrow path and fight.

General Chi Haotian left with western visitor.

In the long run, the relationship of China and the United States is one of a life-and-death struggle. Of course, right now it is not the time to openly break up with them yet. Our reform and opening to the outside world still rely on their capital and technology. We still need America. Therefore, we must do everything we can to promote our relationship with America, learn from America in all aspects and use America as an example to reconstruct our country. Only by using special means to ‘clean up’ America will we be able to lead the Chinese people there. Only by using non-destructive weapons that can kill many people will we be able to reserve America for ourselves. There has been rapid development of modern biological technology, and new bio weapons have been invented one after another. Of course we have not been idle; in the past years we have seized the opportunity to master weapons of this kind. We are capable of achieving our purpose of ‘cleaning up’ America all of a sudden. When Comrade Xiaoping was still with us, the Party Central Committee had the perspicacity to make the right decision not to develop aircraft carrier groups and focused instead on developing lethal weapons that can eliminate mass populations of the enemy country. Biological weapons are unprecedented in their ruthlessness, but if the Americans do not die then the Chinese have to die. If the Chinese people are strapped to the present land, a total societal collapse is bound to take place. According to the computations of the author of Yellow Peril, more than half of the Chinese will die, and that figure would be more than 800 million people! Just after the liberation, our yellow land supported nearly 500 million people, while today the official figure of the population is more than 1.3 billion. This yellow land has reached the limit of its capacity. One day, who know how soon it will come, the great collapse will occur any time and more than half of the population will have to go. It is indeed brutal to kill one or two hundred million Americans. But that is the only path that will secure a Chinese century, a century in which the CCP leads the world. We, as revolutionary humanitarians, do not want deaths, But if history confronts us with a choice between deaths of Chinese and those of Americans, we’d have to pick the latter, as, for us, it is more important to safeguard the lives of the Chinese people and the life of our Party. The last problem I want to talk about is of firmly seizing the preparations for military battle. The central committee believes, as long as we resolve the United States problem at one blow, our domestic problems will all be readily solved. Therefore, our military battle preparation appears to aim at Taiwan, but in fact is aimed at the United States, and the preparation is far beyond the scope of attacking aircraft carriers or satellites. Marxism pointed out that violence is the midwife for the birth of the new society. Therefore war is the midwife for the birth of China’s century.”

China’s second aircraft carrier, 3 more to come in the current program.

Comrade Chi Haotian idea’s for limited war strategy is the fait accompli. Such an approach involves an attacker seizing territory before the defender and its patron can react sufficiently and then making sure that the counterattack needed to eject it would be so risky, costly, and aggressive that the United States would balk at mounting it, not least because its allies might see it as unjustified and refuse to support it. Such a war plan, if skillfully carried out in the Coral Sea, could checkmate the United States as it has already succeeded to out bluff the USA in the South China Sea.

So as most of our readers are firearm owners I would suggest we take a notice of Oliver Cromwell’s advice “Put your trust in God, my boys, and keep your powder dry” as one day soon we are all going to need everything we have.

There is no Spring without Winter, without Mistakes there is no Learning. There is no Life without Death, without Doubts there is no Faith. There is no Peace without War, without Fear there is no Courage. For without Mistakes, Doubts and Fears there are no pathways to Wisdom.
Ron Owen.
———–
Any Inquiries on any products phone 07 54824099 or 07 54825070 or email owenguns@spiderweb.com.au

Compromising On Gun Control. The Cake Story.

Why We Won't Compromise - The Cake Story

Maybe I'm the last one to know this story. My shooting buddy, Dan, couldn't believe I had never seen it. But, it's the perfect explanation to use when someone asks "Why won't you gun people at least compromise a little?"

When we originally posted this article, I said I didn’t know who had written it. Now I do. Credit goes to the Law Dog Files.  My apology to The Law Dog Files for not knowing, and my thanks for their contribution. You can see more at The Law Dog Files.

The Cake
Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. I received it from the 2nd amendment.

Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own?

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

You say, "Let's compromise once more." What do I get out of this compromise? I get to keep one-eighth of what's left of the cake I already own?

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Machine gun ban of 1986 -- and I'm left holding what is now just an eighth of my cake.

I sit back in the corner with just my eighth of cake that I once owned outright and completely, I glance up and here you come once more.

You say nothing and just grab my cake; This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise". ~ Tom

Tom Gresham
Author, outdoorsman, gun rights activist, and firearms enthusiast for more than five decades, Tom Gresham hosts Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, the first nationally-syndicated radio show about guns and the shooting sports, and is also the producer and co-host of the Guns & Gear, GunVenture and First Person Defender television series.

https://nationalshooting.org.au/blog/f/no-compromise-the-pro-gun-article-that-takes-the-cake

https://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/?m=1

Can our corrupt government take all that we have?

This article is based on the situation in the USA, but, we are now in the same boat in Australia, due to our Anti-Terrorism Laws!!!
http://www.survivaldan101.com/preppers-beware-our-supplies-can-be-deemed-illegal-not-by-a-gang-of-armed-violent-looters-but-by-color-of-law-by-local-or-federal-law-enforcement-agents-or-the-national-guard-and-even-regul/

http://www.survivaldan101.com/the-present-legal-support-for-seizing-our-food-and-other-supplies-part-2/

Thoughts for the week by Ron Owen 20/3/2019

Thoughts For The Week.

“What you do in your lifetime will echo down through eternity”,
Marcus Aurelius.

Thoughts for the Week,
Is this the Start of Catastrophic Abyss?
Malevolent Media.
It only needs a ‘Left Wing Nut case’, (M16,SIS visits & Russian Terrorist lists) with an agenda to support Communist China to kill 50 people and the Maleficent Media have a piranha like feeding frenzy on the innocent firearm owners. They dance in the bloody intestines of good people turning, night into day and black into white. When he is positively “left wing” yet they say a “right wing extremist”. Two attacks at the same time, yet now say “one lone wolf gunman”. No one asks why one of the Mosques attacked had a firearm and fired back at the attacker chasing him away, or is that a case of a firearm stopping a massacre and the media wants to know nothing about it? ‘Gunman’ but never ‘Bombman’ he had two Bombs. The media says ‘Only Right Wing extremists’ are ‘Mass killers’, forgetting the Islamics who have massacred 84,000 people since 911. The ‘Left Wing Nutcase’ stated in his manifesto that he wanted stop civilian firearm ownership, so the NZ government carry out his agenda, banning firearms in New Zealand. Meanwhile, in Australia 55 million dollars is given to Australian Islamic Mosques if this was going to Christian churches the media would scream that the government is establishing a religion in breach of the Section 116 of the Constitution. Media Control is the Manufactured Consent on the Road Serfdom. Who Controls the Media?

As in last month’s “Thought for the Week” I explained the logical reasoning why people choose to live in a community, and not live in nature (the log cabin within isolate families).  To explain, in return Good Government has a responsibility to the people who elect and support them. This month I wanted to explain in detail how those four main reasons form the legs of the table that support a nation state.

The Social Contract (nothing to do with Socialism) is the basis of Constitutional Government.

1. Defence, from internal and external aggression.

2. Defence of Property.

3. Resort to Justice.

4. Defence of Individual Rights, including Free Speech, Movement, Thought and the right to defend all of the above with arms suitable for their defence.

‘That a Good Government has a sacred duty to protect its citizens, when they fail to do this, the duty, not just the right, devolves to the Citizen themselves.’

However, due to the tragedy in Christchurch, New Zealand and the insane response by our media and puppet parliament, I can use this as an example of how modern governments are in severe breach of our Social Contract.
……………………..
Firstly, let me say that the creatures that orchestrated and carried out this despicable attack on civilians including women and children are monsters and if found guilty by a jury of 12 should receive the death penalty. For all attacks like this, which ever ideology that the victims follow,

Senator Anning and his wife Fiona visiting the Owen Guns Trust Museum.,

the perpetrators have no excuses, no defence, they have a political motive, they are employed to destroy the cohesion within a community.
In the manifesto Tarrant states Remove the Rights and Freedoms of the public and be intent on killing as many victims as possible to achieve that goal. They are every sane person’s enemy and should be put down as quickly as possible, in the same manner as we should treat all mass killers of civilians.
………………..
Government Break’s Down the Social Contract.

Defence has Been Removed.

A. Government without permission from its people, provide for invasion of an alien culture to settle within its borders. These alien people support an extremist ideology of World Conquest, conversion to Islam or die, which threatens the lives of the host nation. Converting an external threat into an internal threat is not defending its own people.

B. Government countenanced the import to New Zealand of a terrorist, again failing to defend the people from external and internal threat.

C. Government failed to defend the worshippers at the two Mosque’s.

Justice Will be Removed.
This event will be used as a tool to destroy more legs to the table, as 500,000 plus innocent firearm owners will bare the brunt of this guilt.  The media have already charged them, and put them before a Kangaroo Court and they have been found Guilty and sentenced to losing their rights, property and freedoms.

Even though,
“A second shooting happened at a mosque in the Linwood area of the city. One Friday prayer goer returned fire with a rifle or shotgun. Witnesses said they heard multiple gunshots around 1.45pm. A well known Muslim local chased the shooters and fired two shots at them as they sped off. He was heard telling police officers he was firing in “self defence“.”They were in a silver Subaru,” he told police.” from the NZ Herald.

This proves,

1. That firearms in the hands of the victims saved lives at one Mosque;

2. That where civilians are disarmed as in the other Mosque they are killed with ease as the Police were not in attendance for 36 minutes.

To disarm the citizens when the government has abrogated its responsibility to defend, makes this a duty not just a right for the civilians to defend their families and themselves. This again breaches the Social Contract, the reasons that we chose to live in a community.

We the innocent firearm owners in Australia will also suffer the ‘slings and arrows’ of this outrageous fortune with further losses to our rights.

The suspects also had ‘Bombs”. Are they going to ‘Ban Bombs’ of course not as they are banned already, which also goes to show that banning firearms in the same fashion is no deterrent to these, terrorists of any persuasion. These tragedies only serve as false excuses for politicians who continually demand more power in the hands of themselves.

As soon as one leg of the Social Contract table is removed all of the other three are broken and reduced to firewood. The media and the government will quickly remove the blame from the suspects and place it squarely on the shoulders of the firearm owners.

Property Will Be Removed.

When the New Zealand government legislates to remove the semi-auto rifles and shotguns and maybe pump action shotguns it removes the rights of its citizens to own the product of their labour. When a bird works to unearth a worm, the worm belongs to the bird and his family, the bird can if it wishes distribute the worm to its family. Once the precedent is made that allow governments to take property of one person and give it to another such as the police, then they can use that precedent to take any property they like because the public has not been strong enough to resist these impositions.

The only way that they can disarm the innocent firearm owners is to send other men with guns to take them away.

The Freedom of Speech Has Been Removed.

On Sunday 17th of March 2019 Facebook informs me that my post has been removed and I have been sent to Facebook silence Prison for Seven Days. Appealed of course as I could not find anything in the text that insults anyone or threatens or berates in bad language, but I stay banned. Please read and spread about far and wide if you feel that it is fair comment.

“Again the Truth has to be suppressed. Senator Fraser Anning speaks the truth. This tragedy would not have happened if it was not for New Zealand’s Immigration Policy. Obviously, if there were no Muslim in New Zealand there would be no Mosques and no Muslims to be shot. Same as with Australia No Muslims no Problems, No Sharia Killings and No Vigilante Response. If we have a cohesive unified population we have no terrorism. This could not have happened in Japan, not because of their Gun laws but because they have No Muslim immigration.

Were we asked if we wanted an Islamic community within Australia, Were the Brits, or the Germans or the New Zealand’s asked, No, they were not. The Governments knew that eventually the people would rebel against this invasion. No one blamed the Maori people from rebelling against their invaders.???  Ron.

I then included an image of Senator Fraser Annning’s Press Release.

Senator Anning lashed out at New Zealand for the way it handled immigration.

“I am utterly opposed to any form of violence within our community, and I totally condemn the actions of the gunman,” Senator Anning said in his statement.

“However, while this kind of violent vigilantism can never be justified, what it highlights is the growing fear within our community, both in Australia and New Zealand, of the increasing Muslim presence.

“As always, left-wing politicians and the media will rush to claim that the causes of today’s shootings lie with gun laws or those who hold nationalist views but this is all clichéd nonsense.

“The real cause of bloodshed on New Zealand streets today is the immigration program which allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand in the first place.” “What effect has this idiot had on us? (Tarrent) He has given the elites carte blanche to censor the internet at every stroke.

I have never condoned a tit-for-tat response here, nor advocated for violence and murder, and will keep working to share my concerns about some of these things in a peaceful manner. Legitimate concerns about runaway immigration, creeping sharia and the like are fully fair and need to be heard. But resorting to what the jihadists do daily is not the way to proceed.”

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has already referred a censor motion to parliament to try and silence Senator Fraser Anning. Quote, “Parliament, I’m sure, will express a very clear view about what he’s had to say,” Mr Morrison said.

Our governments and media cannot abide any opinion that shows them in an ill light. We have to make that small candle light into a spotlight exposing the truth. Already we have those wanting to clamp down further on conservative sites, and censor the internet.

Again, the media, most political leaders and most experts are already speaking of how Muslims are living in fear, and are talking as if they experience such fear every day. Yet, they have NOT been the main victims of terrorism acts. They have been the main perpetrators.

As mentioned the blame game is already happening. As just one example, one social media post said this was directly due to the words and policies of people like Senator Fraser Anning.

Here is a Quiz, is there any of these tragedies, below, that have not got as much air and media attention as this current media feeding frenzy in New Zealand. Could it seem that Muslim lives are much more important, or does the media have the bit between its teeth as it hunts up hysteria to produce the Gun Bans that it loves.

Do you recall the same fury for these disasters or does this current media play remind you of the Port Arthur delirium?

2002 Bali bombings in the tourist district of Kuta on the Indonesian island of Bali, killing 202 people and injuring 240

2004 Madrid, Spain train bombings The explosions killed 193 people and injured around 2,000.

2004 Beslan, Russia school Killing 385

2005 7 July London bombings – Four suicide bombers attacked London Underground trains and a double decker bus during the morning rush hour killing 52 and injuring 784.

2013 Kenya Westgate shopping mall attack killing 67 injuring 175

2015 Kenya April 2 148 people, most of them Christian students killed 148

2015 France November 13 A series of terrorist attacks in Paris kill 137, and wound 368.

2015 Belgium March 22 2016 Brussels bombings that resulted in 35 deaths and 300 wounded.

2016 United States June 12 49 people were killed and 53 injured in a mass shooting at a nightclub in Orlando, Florida. The shooter, Omar Mateen, pledged allegiance to ISIL .

2016 France July 14 87 people (including the perpetrator Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel) died during the Bastille day attack in Nice, 434 were injured.

2017 Manchester UK.Arena Bombing Twenty-three people died, and 139 were wounded, more than half of them children.

2017 London UK March 22 A man drove a car into pedestrians on the south side of Westminster Bridge, injuring 49 people, 4 of them fatally.

2017 London UK. London Bridge attack, a van ran over multiple pedestrians on the London Bridge. On Borough Market the occupants of the van stabbed multiple people killing 11 and wounding 48.

This is only a few examples to see a huge list click on this link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

Journalists at New Zealand press conference were heard to say”Have we been paying too much attention to Muslim terrorism?” Incredible. Anywhere from 200 to 600 million people have been murdered in the past 1400 years in the name of Islam.

We are now just supposed to forget all about the other terrorism, and pretend that Islam is a religion of peace? Yes non-Muslims can and do commit acts of horrible violence and terror, but not even blood thirsty ideologies like godless communism came close to killing as many people in terms of sheer numbers of Islam.

Indeed, it is at this point that we need to be reminded of some home truths. It is perfectly clear that this sort of violence and terrorism is perpetrated on a daily basis against Christians, Westerners and others by Muslim attackers all around the world. As one example, a new report notes that 11 Christians are killed every day for their beliefs, mostly by Muslims. It looks at the ten most dangerous nations for Christians, and finds eight of them are Islamic nations.

World Watch List

In the meantime, we continue to wonder at the lack of Justice as we seem to have so many double standards today.

Yet even in these early stages, we can see how the leftist media will be operating: they will put this attack down to right wing views, to Christianity, to anti-immigration groups, to the conservative alternative media, and so on. It will be open season on anyone and anything even remotely resembling a conservative, a Christian, or those who have expressed legitimate concern about border policies, and unchecked multiculturalism.

For example, we have just learned on the media that one apparent Muslim terrorist who had planned to bomb an entire plane might be given a free pass: “An Australian-Lebanese man in custody on terrorism charges in Lebanon will be freed on bail this week, after the Australian Government agreed to hand over crucial documents. Amer Khayat, 41, is accused of plotting to blow up an Etihad plane on a flight from Sydney to Abu Dhabi in July 2017 using two bombs, one hidden in a meat grinder and another hidden in a Barbie doll.”

www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-14/etihad-sydney-meat-grinder-bomb-plot-terrorism-amer-khayat/10899146

All such killing and attempted killings must be fully and soundly condemned. But the actual historical record is all one-way traffic. Most acts of terrorism conducted around the world are Islamic attacks. Since 9/11 alone there have been nearly 35,000 deadly Islamic terror attacks.

Already we have talking heads asking for stricter Gun Control.
Is it because such killings and attacks are so utterly common and routine, the media give them no coverage so not much outrage is produced. Moreover, every time another Islamic jihad attack occurs, especially in the West, everyone seems to bend over backwards and claim this has nothing to do with Islam and we should not even speak about Islam. They say the whole Muslim religion should not be tarred and feathered because of the actions of these few terrorists, yet have no compunction at all in condemning millions of innocent law abiding firearm owners for the actions of couple of evil idiots. The Difference is Gun Laws, the media and the politicians love it, for them its better than Christmas.

No, the politicians intend to keep increasing immigration and diversity whether we like it or not. They have no right to do this. They have no mandate to do this. Senator Fraser Anning proposed a referendum on immigration and he was torn to shreds by the media for his efforts. They are so intent on tearing the fabric of our societies apart. If they keep ignoring the wishes of the people then soon, Tarrant may yet get the race war he was wishing for, and the rest of us have been trying to avoid. Their delusional obsession with creating a rainbow, multicultural society can only have one outcome.

There is no Spring without Winter, without Mistakes there is no Learning. There is no Life without Death, without Doubts there is no Faith. There is no Peace without War, without Fear there is no Courage. For without Mistakes, Doubts and Fears there are no pathways to Wisdom.
Ron Owen.

Any Inquiries on any products phone 07 54824099 or 07 54825070 or email owenguns@spiderweb.com.au

Gun Control: Victorian Police recommendations: the real story

DC Shane Patton

Combined Firearms Council of Victoria

https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7730265633900072971#editor/target=post;postID=6323964102884171388

A good regulator:

consults;

is open and transparent; and

tests its proposals with key stakeholders before submitting them to government.

Then there’s Victoria Police ….

As many of you know, we started 2017 chasing ‘recommendations’ Victoria Police made to the state government to change YOUR laws, but refused to consult on.

First there’s the bad news: we lost the case.  However the good news is that we found out what those recommendations were through other means.

Not only that, but the evidence submitted by Victoria Police confirmed the accuracy of the information we received, and revealed how much lobbying a member of VicPol’s Executive Branch did behind the scenes.

A bit of background …

In March 2016, Victoria Police told the Herald Sun that they had made ‘recommendations’ to the government on “firearm law reform”. This followed around a dozen articles in the Herald Sun over the preceding months where Victoria Police expressed concerns about firearm thefts, coinciding with the 20thanniversary of the Port Arthur shootings.

In February this year, the CFCV put in a FOI request to find out what those recommendations were.

Our FOI application was rejected on the basis that the recommendations were “Cabinet in Confidence” and also that they were “working documents”, which are two exemptions which are available under FOI laws.

The problem we had with this was that these protections are normally available to government departments rather than agencies like the Victoria Police, whose job is to enforce the law, not make it.

Our VCAT action

In May, we hired a lawyer – Avi Furstenberg from Furstenberg Law –  and a barrister – Robert Cameron – to fight the decision in VCAT (and for their help and patience, we’re truly grateful. They did a great job).

To help fund the case, hundreds of shooters chipped in to raise what we needed to run the case – and we’re also sincerely grateful for their (and your) support.

Over the past few weeks, we’ve had a Directions Hearing, a Compulsory Conference and an “admin mention” and finally on November 13th, the hearing.

The decision was ‘reserved’ which meant that we received it by email around the middle of last week.

We lost the case because VCAT agreed that Victoria Police should be able to enjoy the protection of Cabinet (which we still have a problem with, but it is the way the law is).

What we found out from the case

We learnt a number of things from the evidence VicPol provided, including the events which led to how the recommendations came about.  They are:

1.  That it was Deputy Commissioner, Shane Patton, who liaised with the Police Minister’s office.  Specifically, Victoria Police’s statement advises that:“In around February 2016, Crime Command, Victoria Police instituted a legislative reform proposal around firearms legislation. The proposal was of utmost importance to Crime Command and was targeted at decreasing firearms related offending in Victoria.”  

It also stated: “In late May 2016, it became clear that both Crime Command and Deputy Commissioner Patton (the accountable Executive Command member) wanted to ensure that the importance of this proposal for various legislative changes in relation to firearms was fully understood at Ministerial level” and that “DC Patton wanted to brief the Minister directly with concrete proposals for reform due to the significance of the proposals.”.

At the time this started, the Police Minister was Robyn Scott.  Lisa Neville took over the portfolio in May, which is when Patton decided to start briefing the (new) minister directly.

2. That the Department of Justice and Regulation (DOJR) was involved in discussions about the proposals and organising for the matter to go to Cabinet. DOJR hosts the Firearms Consultative Committee (FCC) but once again, decided to keep it in the dark.

DOJR has done this before: several years ago it developed new regulations hiking firearm dealer fees up by up to 600% which would have driven several of them out of business.

While we were able to beat that, it is clear DOJR, like Victoria Police, has a problem in being a good regulator;

3. That the recent Firearm Amendment Bill, which proposed the introduction of Firearm Prohibition Orders and other things such as changing what constitutes trafficking of firearms came from the recommendations; and

4.  That the recommendations went to Cabinet.  Twice.

The first time is to secure the government’s approval of the concept – called “Approval in Principle” – while the second is where Cabinet gets to see the detail of what eventually goes to parliament – that stage is called “Bill at Cabinet”.

We know from VicPol’s statement that the recommendations were sent after the AIP date had communicated to VicPol by the Department.  It means the recommendations were sent after Deputy Commissioner Patton had secured the Minister’s agreement to take the matter to Cabinet. That’s why VCAT ruled in their favour.

.. but we know what the recommendations are

You would think that because we lost the case, that we don’t know what the recommendations are.

Wrong.   Shortly after filing our matter in VCAT (in May) we were contacted by a source who was encouraged by the action we had instituted, who then sent us a detailed email outlining the recommendations – and what the government did with them. (Thank you source, you know who you are …).

Several months later, Victoria Police’s statement provided evidence which corroborated the information we had earlier received (in particular, it verified the origin of the Firearms Amendment Bill, the involvement of Cabinet and the timing of when these events happened).  Our crystal ball proved to be right.

So, in the absence of information to the contrary, it’s pretty clear the information we received is correct.  VicPol, DOJR and Labor are all welcome to refute this, but it would be up to them to prove us wrong.

The recommendations

The recommendations are listed below.  They were agreed by Cabinet, which decided to defer them until after the 2018 Victorian State Election, “so as not to alienate shooters”.

The recommendations are to:

Disarm most cash-in-transit security guards – Cabinet has agreed to remove firearms from plain clothed security guards carrying cash and other valuables, who make up 80-90 percent of the cash-in transit industry. This will threaten the safety of those guards, and the viability of the businesses who supply the equipment they use.  (If relevant industry bodies want to stop this from happening, then they need to get political.  They can email us at admin@firearmscouncil.org.au to find out how);

Greater search and seizure powers – (in addition to the Firearm Prohibition Orders which we already know about), these powers will extend to allowing police to check your firearm storage at any time of day or night, without any warning or a warrant;

The right to reclassify any firearm – Cabinet agreed with police that they – not parliament – should be able to reclassify any firearm, for any reason, and without the right of appeal.

The abolition of the Firearms Appeal Committee – this will remove the ability of shooters to appeal decisions made by Victoria Police (for example, something relating to licence applications) to the Firearms Appeals Committee. This means shooters will need to take the more expensive option of hiring lawyers to take their matters to VCAT or court; and

Increased penalties for firearm offences and changing what constitutes trafficking firearms. The issue of what constitutes trafficking has already appeared in the Firearms Amendment Bill (currently before parliament), but not the ‘increased penalties’.  Cabinet agreed to increase the penalties for minor transgressions of the law, such as leaving a couple of 22s rolling around the floor of the ute.

If Victoria Police or government wish to correct the record, then they are free to do so by producing the source documents we were pursuing, however the information we have been given accords with the evidence given by Victoria Police.

In the absence of this, we are entitled to take these as matters of Labor policy.

Hopefully exposing these particular recommendations will make them go away for now – but more needs to be done to make sure the regulator doesn’t try something like this again (it’s happened before, so is likely to happen again).

At the end of the day we do not have a problem with laws which legitimately target criminals.  However we have to take action where there are deliberate efforts to bypass our community on laws which directly affect it. It’s as much about “good regulatory practice” (eg being open, transparent and consultative …) than anything else.

If Victoria Police can’t or won’t behave like a good regulator, it will never be able to suggest good laws – which means the crims continue to get away.

Stay in touch

With the next state election coming up in November 2018, it’s important that shooters like yourself follow the CFCV:

on Facebook by Liking our page; or

joining our email list (on the link in the comments area with this video)

Following us means we can get pro-shooting voting advice out to you before you vote.  That way, we will be able to use the political process to stop things like this happening.

It’ll also make it easier for you to work out who to vote for when you’re standing in front of your ballot papers unsure about who the candidates are or what they stand for!  We’ll go through the parties and candidates who will be contesting the election, what their policies are, and where their preferences will go.

Gun Control, confiscation and amnesties.

https://ssaa.org.au/assets/news-resources/research/2008-08_the-australian-firearms-buyback-and-its-effect-on-gun-deaths.pdf

Melham pointed The Conversation to “a direct quote from the University of Melbourne’s independent study by Lee and Suardi, 2008”, which states:

… the National Firearms Agreement did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.

Melham added:

Homicides using a firearm were on the decline well before the anomaly of the Port Arthur murders. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s firearm injuries and deaths report 2017 clearly shows that firearm-related deaths began steadily decreasing from 1991, five years before the National Firearms Agreement was introduced.

https://theconversation.com/response-from-the-sporting-shooters-association-of-australia-nsw-for-a-factcheck-qanda-on-gun-buybacks-and-gun-deaths-86052

Letters to the Editor: National gun amnesty By Ian Walmsley Glen Innes NSW.

The types of guns handed in with the National Amnesty shows what happens when honest citizens are declared criminals overnight by Politicians with knee-jerk reactions.

More Here: http://www.northerndailyleader.com.au/story/5008362/letters-to-the-editor-national-gun-amnesty/

Thoughts For The Week By Ron Owen. Gun Control.

Thoughts For The Week.

“Insanity in individuals is something rare – but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.” Friedrich Nietzsche

The Eternal Battle For Truth, Against The Onslaught Of  Prevarication.
Over the last few weeks we have all had to bear the ‘slings and arrows of outrageous fortune’. Besides being totally innocent, we as firearm owners were all found guilty of being complicit in the deaths of the concert goers in Las Vegas, to the extent that this tragedy was used to punish the innocent law abiding firearm owners of this state by the majority of the Queensland Parliament. (See Link  http://www.foaa.com.au/nfa-gets-green-light-from-lnp-and-labor-in-queensland-parliament/)

Firearm Owners Betrayed Again.

Mark Ryan and the Queensland Labor party, immune from any moral scruples about dancing in the blood of tragedy, grabbed the opportunity to introduce the regulations changes that it had prepared over a year ago, after when the Police Ministers COAG meeting agreed to penalise innocent Firearm Owners once again.

As Labor has a minority government it needed the support of their Lib Labs mates of their so called opposition the LNP. Up until 3 hours before the crucial vote in the house of parliament the LNP swore that they would not vote with Labor, they stated that their new policy was to protect the interests of law abiding firearm owners and would not vote for any legislation that was not ‘evidenced based’. The two Katter Party members had also the support from Steve Dickson, One Nation, and the Independent Billy Gordon. An hour before the vote the leader of the LNP Tim Nicholls emailed me and told me that they were going to vote with Labor. I emailed him back and said that I never expected, “the Leopard to Change its Spots.”

At least it Exposes the LNP to the Light.
The single lighted candle that illuminated the whole affair was that our local member, Tony Perrett was the first member of the 55th Parliament to cross the floor and vote with the Katter Party and One Nation. That took considerable fortitude to stand up for his electorate against his Party. Lets hope he stands as an independent so he get the full benefit at the electoral box. Of course his brave stand had little impact on the vote 76 to the 5 brave hero’s, but as we have an imminent State election that ‘lighted candle’ shines a clear light, a clear path to put no trust whatso ever in the LNP. It shows that it is up to ourselves the 600,000 law abiding firearm owners of Queensland to support the example of those Independents and Katter and One Nation Party to acquire more seats in this coming election. The LNP have shown that even its own elected members cannot trust what ever the LNP hierarchy says.

Tony Perrett (right) awards his prize a .30-06 Mossberg to Troy Tompkins for the most pigs, at the Queensland Big Boar Championships Gympie 2015.

We have to Act and Vote Together.
The LNP treat law abiding firearm owners as ‘kindling’ something to be gathered in, bought with false promises, then thrown piece by piece on to the fire, as a cheap political sacrifice.

We have to motivate that ‘kindling’, to stick together in a tight un-breakable bundle. Only when the law abiding firearm owners stick together and vote together will we break through the tyranny that has been imposed on us. We have the Right, we have the Might, but as yet we do not have the unity of purpose.

Those Who Pay the Piper Pick the Tune.

If you can stand to read the transcript of the speeches in parliament, even ignoring the lies and emotion you will be greatly disappointed by the treachery and ignorance of the speakers. They fall back on the insane illogical mantra, ‘Guns kill, Guns are evil, Ban Guns’. Most of the Labour parliamentarians don’t believe it themselves, but use it as a set of tools to ingratiate themselves with the Police, gain more control over the citizens, and buy gratitude from the left wing, George Sorus Foundations, such as ‘Get Up“. Money talks and buys votes.

Logic and Relevant Facts Find Truth.
Most politicians, privately will admit that there is no correlation between the availability of Trucks, Pressure Cookers, Box Cutters, Jet Planes, Machette’s, Fire (arson), Sarin Gas, Poison or Firearms and mass murder. Gun Controls are not only ‘not relevant’ to these events, the reliance on the wrong ‘fix’ increases the likelihood that they will continue to occur. In fact as firearm ownership by civilians has vastly increased since 1990 to date, correspondingly murders by firearms has reduced in the USA (see FBI statistics) and to 14 % of all homicides in Australia.

Same as there is no correlation between firearm owners and mass murderers, mass murders will use any tool at their disposal from a neck tie, to prescription drugs. Freedom is based on the principle that only the wrong doer suffers the punishment, so why turn law abiding firearm owners into victims of the State injustice?

Privately He Admits Facts and Logic Win Out.
Politicians also well know, that the purported efforts to control the criminal use of firearms by placing more restrictions on legitimate users will not achieve anything. Tim Manders MP, the LNP Shadow Minister for Police privately agrees with my statements, that the greatest danger lies, not in the ineffectiveness of such restrictions, but in a belief that they will solve the problem. Whilst this mistaken belief persists, the real problem will not receive any attention, or action which it clearly and urgently requires.

Yet Forgets The Fact, When His Party Calls.
After the lip service, he joins with his parliamentary colleagues and votes to ban guns and place more impositions on the law abiding. Tim Manders is an intelligent person capable of logical thought, so what is the agenda. I can only assume that it is power and money, and will be forced to believe that until some other evidence is produced.

Illogical Disorder.
However, we have all met what we would call kindly as ‘nincompoop’s’ (and there are a lot of them that sit in Parliament) that suffer from a mental problem, not so they could be committed as mad, but similar to anxiety disorders, schizophrenia, or addictive behaviour which is an enduring disability.

Hilary Clinton has that ‘glazed’ eyes look and has no reasoning ability at all.

I am sure that most firearm owners have had discussions with the rabid anti gun proscribers who instead of thinking of the facts in contention to find the reasons that we all hold things to be true, as logic is an essential importance to rationality have an inability to reason. Propositions are logical if they are “conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity”, they are rational according to the broader requirement that they are based on reason and knowledge. Yet with these Anti Gunners suffering from ‘illogicality’ they reach conclusions that do not follow logically, they follow emotion and faulty inferences. When questioned they just repeat the mantra, such as “Guns Are Dangerous” “If there were no Guns”. They are unable to reason that to disarm one section of the community the other section Police or the State has to have guns to take them. They will not accept that people will make their own firearms. That what they crave is impossible. In their case it is an illogical disorder and they are used by the smarter creatures as pawns in their power plays.

Those suffering from this mental inability to use basic logic, cannot comprehend simple and clear statements such as ‘if we cannot blame all Muslims for the actions of a few, why blame all of Queensland’s law abiding firearm owners for the actions of one man in the USA. They cannot see the huge flaw that Guns are an inanimate object and that without human direction cannot kill, or do anything on their own they repeat their mantra ‘Guns kill, Guns are evil, Ban Guns’ ‘Get the guns out of society and stop the killing’. Even the statement, ‘Gun Control’ is illogical as it is a piece of steel, it has no mind or direction, it needs a human to move it, but it sound good so politicians and people that have an inability to think keep using it. Wouldn’t ‘Criminal Control’ be a better slogan? Surely they know that mass killings were carried out by people for thousands of years before firearms were invented.

Firearm Ownership Annual Increase for 25years.
These Anti gunners refuse to listen to the facts that show that societies with more guns like Switzerland or even New Zealand are much safer, or that as we have more firearms in Australia now, then at any time in our history and the murder rate continues to decline. Incoherently, they give credit to John Howards Gun Bans when the facts show that the numbers of firearms has increased annually ever since his Buy Back.

Another symptom of this mental disorder is in this repetition or mantra, they have reinforced from one another and hear it repeated on TV and Hollywood movies, the name of this mental disorder symptom is Palilalia (from the Greek meaning “again” and “again”) a disorder characterized by the involuntary repetition of syllables, words, or phrases.

Palilalia is defined as the repetition of the speaker’s words or phrases, often for a varying number of repeats. Palilalic repetitions are often spoken with decreasing volume and speed up over time with continual practice. Watching videos, ( I know its difficult) of Anti Gunner’s chanting slogans repetitively, with slightly glazed eyes and miserable faces convinces me that it is not just hoplophobia (a fear of guns) if they are not suffering from illogical disorder they have other worse mental problems. One thing is clear, it would be beneficial for society to address these concerns with a great deal more scrutiny than they have received thus far, especially from psychiatric and psychological perspectives. Some of what we all have to deal with in the public arena as politics is really instead, a manifestation of these psychiatric conditions. Additionally, it is the belief of many firearm owners that the political and media-driven, illogical anti-gun fanaticism contributes to the genesis and proliferation of fear of firearms in the general population.

We must Spread the Word, or Suffer the Consequences.
While media use fear to sell newspapers, or advertising and politicians are under the misunderstanding that they can use this fear to buy votes the situation is only going to continue. We have to all show our hands, not just isolated by ourselves, we have to all spread the word ensure that everyone we know, even if they do not agree with us at least understands the issues at stake. We the innocent law abiding firearm owners will not accept waiting three to six months for a shooters licence, we will not accept that we have to wait two months for a permit to acquire when we have already waited three months to get a licence. We who have done no wrong will be punished no longer.

Vote For Freedom.

Where is the best place to show our hands? Why not Queensland, we have the numbers to decide every election in this nation, but Queensland is the key. Most shooters or their children can remember being free, remember the time when identification was all that was needed to buy a firearm, a time when maniacs and criminals were kept in jail. So at this coming election please get involved contact all the candidates, tell the Greens, Labor, LNP why your Not going to vote for them and chose a Shooter Party, or Katter Party, or One Nation Party, or a pro shooting Independent instead and actively help them get elected. Don’t come complaining over the counter at your local gunshop, there is lots of truth in the saying, “You get the government you deserve”. There is only one thing that is certain, and that is that the worlds future is uncertain, yet no matter who we are, if we breath, we contribute to that future and must make that future fair and free.
There is no Spring without Winter, without Mistakes there is no Learning. There is no Life without Death, without Doubts there is no Faith. There is no Peace without War, without Fear there is no Courage. For without Mistakes, Doubts and Fears there are no pathways to Wisdom.
Ron Owen.

Any Inquiries on any products phone 07 54824099 or 07 54825070 or email owenguns@spiderweb.com.au