This is an interesting e-mail I just received from a listener named Don, in Tasmania. Kind of scary how similar his story is to ours. If you want a lesson on incremental loss of rights to share with your complacent hunting buddies, read this!

On a less enjoyable note I listened to your podcast(s) regarding Jim Zumbo and was shocked that someone so active in the shooting and hunting world could make such a blunder. As I think I have related before, we have gone through the process of what I consider severe firearms regulation following the "Port Arthur Massacre", which happened less than an hour from where I lived at the time. As a result the general public can no longer possess semi-automatic firearms of any type, rifle or shotgun. We also have to justify our "need" to have a firearms license.

We had a huge gun buy-back programme that was funded by the government in order to reduce the number of firearms in private hands. Funny thing is that at the time I had nine firearms and following the buy-back I had eight. Not much of a reduction if you ask me. I handed my semi-auto SKB shotgun and Ruger 10/22 in and immediately replaced them with an over/under shotgun and bolt action .22, funded by the money I received for handing the semi-autos in.

Anyway, enough of my complaining. The points I wanted to raise were to do with what the lessons I learned during this disarming process:

Firstly, you cannot "give a little" to appease the anti-gun lobby. It will never end and their whole approach is based on whittling away your rights in small chunks until you have none.

Don't fall for the military-style argument. Many youngsters have cut their teeth with cheap ex-"military-style" imported firearms and cheap ammunition, many of whom would otherwise not have had the opportunity. In the end it makes no difference what the original purpose of the firearm was, it is the person that pulls the trigger that determines how it is used. The follow-up argument used by the anti-gun lobby here was that sporting rifles with scopes were "sniper rifles". Where does it stop? It doesn't.

It shouldn't matter but we need to be careful how we refer to the tools we use to hunt. You'll probably notice the number of times I use the term "firearm", never weapon. We use firearms in the form of rifles and shotguns. We can't give the anti-gun fraterity the opportunity to quote us with emotive terms such as "weapon", "military", "sniper", "assault" or "terrorist". Jim Zumbo made this mistake.

We had a slogan when the debate was happening over firearm restrictions - "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". How true. If you outlaw certain types of firearms the only people who will heed those laws will be the law-abiding citizens. The terrorists, murderers and muggers didn't care in the first place and they certainly won't care if you change the law. The laws affect the very people that are the least likely to cause and issue.

United we stand. It doesn't matter if you hunt with dogs, shoot targets or dust clay pigeons, we are all firearms users. Don't let anybody divide us and take us down, one by one.

Sorry if I made you wade through a long email about things you already know. I just thought I'd pass on my experience based on what I'm hearing through your podcast. The feeling of deja vu is frightening. I hunted in New Zealand a few years ago and I remember the guide saying that the firearms restriction we had in Australia would never happening in New Zealand. They did. You can never be complacent.

HuntCast,

Welcome to the forum, and Thanks for sharing that post!

This is an interesting e-mail I just received from a listener named Don, in Tasmania. Kind of scary how similar his story is to ours. If you want a lesson on incremental loss of rights to share with your complacent hunting buddies, read this!

On a less enjoyable note I listened to your podcast(s) regarding Jim Zumbo and was shocked that someone so active in the shooting and hunting world could make such a blunder. As I think I have related before, we have gone through the process of what I consider severe firearms regulation following the "Port Arthur Massacre", which happened less than an hour from where I lived at the time. As a result the general public can no longer possess semi-automatic firearms of any type, rifle or shotgun. We also have to justify our "need" to have a firearms license.

We had a huge gun buy-back programme that was funded by the government in order to reduce the number of firearms in private hands. Funny thing is that at the time I had nine firearms and following the buy-back I had eight. Not much of a reduction if you ask me. I handed my semi-auto SKB shotgun and Ruger 10/22 in and immediately replaced them with an over/under shotgun and bolt action .22, funded by the money I received for handing the semi-autos in.

Anyway, enough of my complaining. The points I wanted to raise were to do with what the lessons I learned during this disarming process:

Firstly, you cannot "give a little" to appease the anti-gun lobby. It will never end and their whole approach is based on whittling away your rights in small chunks until you have none.

Don't fall for the military-style argument. Many youngsters have cut their teeth with cheap ex-"military-style" imported firearms and cheap ammunition, many of whom would otherwise not have had the opportunity. In the end it makes no difference what the original purpose of the firearm was, it is the person that pulls the trigger that determines how it is used. The follow-up argument used by the anti-gun lobby here was that sporting rifles with scopes were "sniper rifles". Where does it stop? It doesn't.

It shouldn't matter but we need to be careful how we refer to the tools we use to hunt. You'll probably notice the number of times I use the term "firearm", never weapon. We use firearms in the form of rifles and shotguns. We can't give the anti-gun fraterity the opportunity to quote us with emotive terms such as "weapon", "military", "sniper", "assault" or "terrorist". Jim Zumbo made this mistake.

We had a slogan when the debate was happening over firearm restrictions - "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". How true. If you outlaw certain types of firearms the only people who will heed those laws will be the law-abiding citizens. The terrorists, murderers and muggers didn't care in the first place and they certainly won't care if you change the law. The laws affect the very people that are the least likely to cause and issue.

United we stand. It doesn't matter if you hunt with dogs, shoot targets or dust clay pigeons, we are all firearms users. Don't let anybody divide us and take us down, one by one.

Sorry if I made you wade through a long email about things you already know. I just thought I'd pass on my experience based on what I'm hearing through your podcast. The feeling of deja vu is frightening. I hunted in New Zealand a few years ago and I remember the guide saying that the firearms restriction we had in Australia would never happening in New Zealand. They did. You can never be complacent.
Sounds like this guy named Don is already falling into that old "for sporting use only" bit. In the U.S., our 2nd Amend. doesn't discuss the use of sports equiptment. That's a trap the Anti's use with alarming regularity.

Sounds like this guy named Don is already falling into that old "for sporting use only" bit. In the U.S., our 2nd Amend. doesn't discuss the use of sports equiptment. That's a trap the Anti's use with alarming regularity.


Thanks to the genius of our founding fathers you almost need help misunderstanding the second amendment.

Even if it's foolproof, you never want to underestimate the ingenuity of a moron.

To back up the argument that only outlaws will have guns when guns are outlawed. When the aust army lost a number of rocket launchers I didnt hear about the new owners of those weapons rushing off to the local cop shop to apply for a license.
What the government in this country needs to do is make sure that criminals are thoroughly punished for the crimes they commit, instead of covering their collective backsides by attacking legitimate firearm owners to appease vocal lobby groups.

This article shouldn't surprise anyone. This the common trap set up by the UN and the European Union. The Brits and their Commonwealths, Canada and Australia are just examples of falling into the trap of firearms for hunting only and not for self defense or personal enjoyment. When I visited my cousins in France (The Ardennes) most of them showed me hidden closets where they had WW2 vintage Garand, Carbines, Masseurs and even a Thompson with plenty of ammo. And France is just as restrictive as it was prior to the War. During the German occupation they had all they're firearms rounded up because of a national weapons registration list. They told me that they wouldn't go down again unarmed!