If you have been following the news cycle in the USA, you will be aware of the mass shootings that have taken place in El Paso Texas and Dayton Ohio. President Trump has been blamed for both shootings. However, just to keep this brief ecumenical, you might not be aware that there were 53 people shot, seven fatally in Democrat-controlled Chicago last Sunday, 17 victims in less than three hours; and there have been 201 fatal shootings in Democrat-controlled Baltimore this year alone. Left-wing media are searching for ways to hold the President liable for these as well.
The result of all this bloodshed has been an outpouring of grief, with candidates for the Democratic Presidential nomination are calling for a variety of gun control methods, including the banning of automatic weapons and even the banning of magazines that hold more than ten rounds.
The Sydney Morning Herald carried two articles on the topic of gun control on 6 August, themes significant of which was that of Kristina Keneally, (KK) a largely useless person, who lamented the arrival of a US conservative group (CPAC) that included members of the NRA who had questioned the practical effect of Australia’s gun laws. This also opened the channel for her broadside on Scot Morrison who had, she claimed, by allowing CPAC to come here, was ‘effectively encouraging further radicalisation’ of right-wing groups, not including the 100 already under surveillance with ‘more lurking in the shadows. Fox News in the US also copped a spray.
I suppose it could be argued that because of the gun buy-back, left-wing protests by Antifa, anti-coal, Green activists were restricted to physical violence without the means of causing mass deaths (to save the planet of course); except, of course for thousands of Australians killed in our abortion clinics every year, with KK’s imprimatur.
One needs to contrast KK’s choreographed left-wing outrage, its timing and intensity with the positive case for private gun ownership if her argument is to be evaluated properly. In such a contrast, one would have to conclude that there would not even be a USA were it not for the private ownership of weapons in 1776 and if left-wing plans are fulfilled over there, the conservative vote will be overborne by an influx of an illegal, uneducated peasant class from central America for whom the natural right to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ is just another name for slavery.
Realistically, there is no guarantee that any government, even one with a written Constitution consented to by the people will continue forever; that is, unless the people who consented to it are eternally vigilant and self-reliant. But how is that to happen if only the government and its military are armed? Liberal democracy in those circumstances depends upon other’s goodwill and goodwill, as everyone knows, comes at a price.
There have been two occasions in Australia’s short history when our Constitution was dramatically altered without the people’s consent. Both went unchallenged because most Australians don’t appreciate the wisdom of the founders nor that their liberty depends less on being left alone by the government than on their participation in government.
The people of Hong Kong do not participate in the government of Hong Kong. The government is an administration by Carrie Lam who was herself appointed by the People’s Republic (sic) of China. That is the result of a betrayal of the Hong Kong people by the British government in 1997, a betrayal authorised by ignorant British lawyers who couldn’t tell the difference between a Chinese communist tyranny and the government from whom they obtained a lease in 1897. They owned no contractual obligation to the tyrant yet the traded the Hong Kong people’s reversion away.
The people of Hong Kong are at this moment showing their desire for self-government by engaging in street demonstrations. The Chinese People’s Liberation Army is massed on the border of Hong Kong and threatening to put down the insurrection. The work of arresting the demonstrators is currently being undertaken by the Hong Kong police but when that doesn’t work the CPLA will do what is necessary; remember how effective it was in Tiananmen Square in 1989.
The Hong Kong people are peaceful, armed only with their own courage. If they had been allowed to possess guns, it would be different. Any military man will tell you that house to house fighting inflicts heavy casualties on an invader. Unfortunately, the Chinese Communist Party understands that its own power comes out of a gun and, like every tyranny before it, it disarmed the people, leaving only the police and the military armed. Guns, it seems can as easily be used in self-defence as they can in revolution. But it’s all too late once the guns have been surrendered even if you got a fair price at the time.
Perhaps Your KK should go to Hong Kong and tell those courageous people that when the tanks come she will stand with them.
David Long is a retired solicitor, economist and PhD candidate at Griffith University, School of Law.
Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.