Horrible news from Australia

[X Count]

"IMHO they were using them as bait to monitor their interactions with other individuals but because they were father and son they were able to communicate and plan a terrorist attack under their own roof with limited interactions and support from other extremists.".

If that's correct Albo will lose his job. And we may be saved from very stupid gun reforms.

Not a chance. He has plausible deniability and all sides of politics would like an unarmed population to control. He might take the fall but libs will be happy to see it happen on his watch.

Im suspecting the buyback will only relate to newly banned guns like button / lever release rifles and shotguns. Then there will be stricter purpose of use requirements for your remaining firearms and therefore most will loose several guns without need for the government to pay out any form of compensation. Also all of your accessories like scopes, brass, dies, Seb Neo's etc etc etc they won't be giving you any compensation for.

I hate to say it but the only hope I can see is one nation or if premiers get cold feet about paying their 50% of the buyback. Again that will only be determined once they specify what they will be buying back.

Vote on the polls, donate to one nation and write to your MP is our only real hope.

 

[Tangent]

The failing has come from government agencies not acting on intelligence and removing the licence and guns from the terrorists. We don't have a right to bear arms and there is multiple mechanisms to exclude people from owning guns so HOW didn't it happen in this instance.

That is the key point. "Look over there, nothing to do with us". Usual political tactic to deflect responsibility. They then restrict everyone that played no part in it to look like they are doing something.

The sad part is, it works on most of the electorate most of the time. Once these ideas take hold they tend to take on a life of their own until you're looking at true authoritarianism. Begins with, "We want to help", and ends with, "You will comply". History repeating itself.

 

[danny]

That is the key point. "Look over there, nothing to do with us". Usual political tactic to deflect responsibility. They then restrict everyone that played no part in it to look like they are doing something.

The sad part is, it works on most of the electorate most of the time. Once these ideas take hold they tend to take on a life of their own until you're looking at true authoritarianism. Begins with, "We want to help", and ends with, "You will comply". History repeating itself.

Ronald Reagan quote on the nine most terrifying words in the English language to hear: "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help".

Danny

 

[MClark]

A go fund me was started for guy that jumped the one shooters.
They gave him a check for 2.5m Australian $ ($1.6m equivalent USD).
Many talk BS say "if that happened I would ….bla bla" This guy really did it.

 

[Rick H.]

You’re assuming that the weapon was loaded, I presume. Has that been verified?

Of course I am "assuming" the weapon was loaded, but even if it wasn't he still has an impact weapon to use on the bad guy. One action or the other will take the perp out of the fight and keep him away from his weapons cache which he indeed did have available. I will never understand why the good Samaritan risked his life to take the weapon away from the shooter, but then allowed him to walk away. It sounds like and I haven't verified this because Aussie authorities haven't said anything about this yet, but someone shot the Good Samaritan that took the rifle away from the bad guy and one of them, the son I believe, also shot the person throwing rocks at the perp who was allowed to walk away. All of this hopefully will be brought out later hopefully after a full and complete investigation. I have to wonder how much information will really be released later on as I am not impressed with Australian law enforcement or their Prime Minister.

Let's understand something here. If the Good Samaritan did in fact shoot the subject he took the weapon away from do you REALLY think a jury, even an Australian jury, would find him guilty of a crime? All one has to do is look at the totality of the circumstances and it is obvious that action, even deadly force, was necessary to protect others. It didn't pan out that way though and that is indeed sad. Others quite possibly were killed or injured needlessly by letting the suspect walk away because we KNOW the suspect retrieved other weapons when he got back to the overpass and used them once again on unarmed citizens.

Rick H.

 

[rwj]

If the Good Samaritan did in fact shoot the subject he took the weapon away from do you REALLY think a jury, even an Australian jury, would find him guilty of a crime?

Sadly in the wacky world of today that often defies logic/common sense - I would not be surprised if that occurred…