This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Wednesday, October 7, 2015:
Frustrated with the failure of his frontal attack on the Second Amendment, President Obama has chosen another approach: the United States should emulate Australia’s gun laws. A year ago, Obama said:
A couple of decades ago, Australia had a mass shooting, similar to Columbine or Newtown. And Australia just said, Well, that’s it, we’re not doing … we’re not seeing that again, and basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws, and they haven’t had a mass shooting since.
Our levels of gun violence are off the charts. There’s no advanced, developed country that would put up with this.
In June he iterated the meme:
It was just so shocking [that Australia] said, “Well, we’re going to completely change our gun laws,” and they did. And it [a mass shooting] hasn’t happened since.
Following the massacre in Oregon at Umpqua Community College, Obama ramped up the rhetoric:
As I said just a few months ago, and I said a few months before that, and I said each time we see one of these mass shootings, our thoughts and prayers are not enough.
It’s not enough. Somehow this has become routine. The reporting is routine. My response here at this podium ends up being routine.
We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours – Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours.
So we know there are ways to prevent it.
If Australia’s gun laws are so great, how is one to explain the shooting of a policeman in Sydney last Friday? Or the hostage incident there last December? Where did those criminals get their guns? Didn’t Australia’s 1996 National Firearms Agreement ban them? Didn’t the country institute a forced gun buyback program? Didn’t that program remove upwards of a million firearms, by force, from their rightful owners?
Last Friday afternoon, 4:30pm local time, Farhad Jabar Khalil Mohammad, dressed in Islamic garb, walked up behind police officer Curtis Cheng as he was leaving police headquarters in Parramatta on Sydney’s west side, pointed his handgun at the back of Cheng’s head, and squeezed the trigger. Cheng was dead before his body hit the ground. The teen then danced a jig in the street, shouting “Allahu Akbar!” Constables from headquarters who rushed outside found themselves targeted by the teen before they returned fire, killing the assassin.
On December 16, 2014, Man Haron Monis, bearded and wearing a black headband with the inscription in Arabic “We are ready to sacrifice for you, O Mohammad” entered the Lindt Chocolate Café in Sydney and, waving a shotgun, took 18 people hostage. The standoff lasted for 16 hours before Monis was subdued and killed by police.
Where did the banned handgun come from? How about that banned shotgun?
A much better question to ask is: how would a similar ban work in the United States? The differences between the two countries are vast. The United States fought against Great Britain to gain its independence, using guns in the hands of its citizens. Australia assented to its independence in 1931 through the gift of the British Parliament, called the Statute of Westminster. Accordingly there is nothing in Australia’s founding documents equivalent to the Second Amendment, nor is there much in Australia’s culture that recognizes the need for firearms in the hands of its citizens to guard against governmental tyranny.
That explains why Aussies were willing, with little resistance, to give up nearly one million of their firearms under the government-mandated gun buyback program launched on October 1, 1996 and concluded a year later. Adding insult to injury, the buyback was funded by a tax on the very citizens whose rights were being violated.
In stark contrast, the freedom culture in America is deep, wide, and growing. And this has caused massive noncompliance in New York and Connecticut when they passed laws infringing on precious rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment. Bob Owens, writing in his Bearing Arms blog, knows there’s little those states can do about it:
New York and Connecticut authorities so far have shown no inclination to enforce their laws by going door to door to round up unregistered guns and arrest their owners.
But that’s what would be necessary to enforce the law.
A federal law [mandating gun confiscation] would require sweeping, national police action involving thousands of lawmen and affecting tens of millions of people.
If proponents of gun control are serious about getting guns out of Americans’ hands, someone will have to take those guns out of Americans’ hands.
Verad Mehta, a noted American history scholar writing at The Federalist, asked perhaps the most important and profound question of all:
Gun confiscation is not happening in the United States any time soon. But let’s suppose it did. How would it work?
Australia’s program netted, at the low end, 650,000 guns, and at the high end, a million. That was approximately a fifth to a third of Australian firearms.
There are about as many guns in America as there are people: 310 million of both in 2009. A fifth to a third would be between 60 and 105 million guns. To achieve in America what was done in Australia, in other words, the government would have to confiscate as many as 105 million firearms….
How do you take 60 to 105 million firearms from 105 to 160 million Americans?
Let there be no doubt. Gun confiscation would have to be administered by force of arms. I do not expect that those who dismissed their fellow citizens for clinging bitterly to their guns are so naïve that they imagine these people will suddenly cease their bitter clinging when some nice young man knocks on their door and says, “Hello, I’m from the government and I’m here to take your guns.”
Yet only a militarized police could enforce an Australian gun-control scheme in the United States.
To take arms from men requires men with arms. There’s no other way to do it….
To choose Australia is to choose civil war.
Is President Obama so committed to his leftist-totalitarian agenda that he is willing to risk civil war? How about Hillary? Is she willing to follow in his footsteps to complete the task of disarming all Americans under the guise of safety and security?