Quote of the day—Ron Lowe

Australia is a shining example of what can be done and how well gun control can work.

Ron Lowe
November 10, 2015
Reader input: Australia points the way on guns
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

8 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Ron Lowe

  1. Check the Australian crime stats and it is clear that Australia is a shining example of how well gun control works. Although not the kind that Lowe had in mind.

  2. It’s also a shining example of what happens in countries without a constitution, and with no solid history of individual liberty.
    Two centuries ago, England had something vaguely like the right to bear arms. But the way it was worded is significant, and led the way to the Australian and British confiscations. “The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law” — which makes it not a right at all, but merely a privilege temporarily granted to “the right people” and subject to cancellation at any time by the whim of the government.

    “This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorize the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.” — Saint George Tucker, 1803, Law Professor at William & Mary, soon to be a Virginia Supreme Court Justice, in Blackstone’s 1768 “Commentaries on the Laws of England.”

  3. Seems I’ve seen on the internet that Australia has a growing problem with illegal guns now.

    • Well sure; they’ve given law-breakers a near monopoly on the bearing of arms. That’s the “shining example” we are asked to follow; a monopoly of force for law-breakers.

      Giving law-breakers a monopoly in the alcohol trade in America worked out well during Prohibition too. It worked so well that the government/criminal complex (the parasite class) repeated that shining example with regard to certain recreational drugs, and of course they’ve wanted that monopoly on guns for a very long time.

      It works. It’s proven effective over long periods. Why abandon it?

      • Common misconception about Australian firearms law:

        The populace DID NOT lose their right to self-defence with a firearm due to the Great Confiscation – it did not exist prior.

        Far from the Great Confiscation “giving the law-breakers a monopoly on the bearing of arms”, the pre-existing situation in Oz had NO “right to bear arms” for ANYONE – unless you were police, or security for the special people. Even in those cases the “bearing of arms” was for occupational purposes only, NOT personal defence.

        The great success in the taking of firearms was only because almost all firearms were already registered – the greatest failure was for the few firearm types in the few locations that did not require a) permission to purchase, b) registration post purchase, AND c) continued annual licensing. At a risk of being imprecise, this covers only some long-arms in only Far North Queensland. From anecdotal evidence many of these guns were never handed in.

        In summary, with only minor exceptions, the following existed BEFORE the Great Confiscation:
        1) May issue permission to purchase
        2) Full registration
        3) Safe storage laws
        4) No right/permission to carry

        AFTERWARDS, all of the above PLUS, with minor exceptions:
        5) no semi-automatic rifles
        6) no semi-automatic shotguns
        7) no handguns above .38″ bore
        8) minimum barrel lengths
        – revolvers = 100mm (4″) not including cylinder
        – semi-automatics = 125 mm (5″) including chamber
        8) no magazines above 10 rounds

    • Unfortunately, the other thing you can say about Paris (and Umpqua College) is that it demonstrates the evil consequences of indoctrinating a culture of helplessness. In both places, the bad guys kept going for many minutes, apparently without facing any resistance from their victims. Contrast that with what (as far as we know) happened on United Flight 77, on 9/11/2001.
      Anybody who has ever spoken the words “when faced with an attack, do not resist, give the attacker what he wants so he’ll go away” is an accomplice before the fact in this.

Comments are closed.