I support the second amendment. So shoot me. I support the right to bare arms in order to maintain a well-regulated militia. I support the right to bare arms – of any nature. If the police and military have access to the weapon, then so should the civilians. The mere notion that police and military refer to the general population as “civvies” or civilians, in so establishing an “us” and “them”, should be self-evident truth (yeah, dig those Constitution puns) that we require the skills and tools to keep the peace with Government.


I also believe (and this is where I will lose many of you – but I implore you read on) that the Port Arthur Massacre (PAM) apparently perpetrated by our good friend Mr Martin Bryant was one of the cruellest, conniving, most evil and calculated plans in modern history…a plan to erode public support in the right to bare arms and the Second Amendment; a plan to harness public outrage and pass wide-sweeping gun control that sees the people willingly disarm themselves. A small control test on a small, remote island off the coast of a slightly larger, though nonetheless small and remote island (Australia) tucked away in the Southern Hemisphere. A test to gauge how people would react to a media frenzied mass shooting in a first world country. The result? Australia has become the poster child for ‘gun reform’.


We’ve all heard it – “Australia has not had one mass shooting since 1996”. For starters, that’s simply wrong – Wright Street murders, Huan Yun Xiang, the Hunt family, Ian Jamieson – but regardless, how did Australia come to be judged as the moral compass for social reform? This is the same country that only recently had to hold a fucking referendum to legalise same-sex marriage (and still with 40% dissenting). This is the same country that fights the spades of evidence in support of marijuana for therapeutic uses. The same country that had the federal government step in to outlaw the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995 in the Northern Territory. The same country that only 50 years ago acknowledged the traditional owners of Australia as part of the population. The same country that committed one of only 2 successful genocides world-wide (ironically, on the same Island as Port Arthur). The same country that recently unveiled plans to become one of the top 10 arms exporters in the world. You hypocritical bastards. In fact, but for being the second country to institute women’s rights to vote, Australia does not have a history of socially forward-thinking political policy. So why then the gun “reform”?


My suggestion is that Australia was used as a test subject to gauge public sentiment in the wake of a seemingly senseless and preventable mass shooting. The warning signs are there. Of all the people in the Broad Arrow Café on 28 April 1996 there were at least 16 with confirmed military or intelligence ties. Three of them died. It does seem odd that in this small café that was purchased from the private sector by the Tasmanian government in 1995 and renovated (to include a rear door which inconveniently failed to open on the day of the shooting) there would be an RAF major, a Taiwanese intelligence officer and a prominent American gun control lobbyist all perched at the counter for their coffee and cake. It also seems odd that these events might take place just 6 weeks after Britain’s own infamous mass shooting at a primary school in Dunblane that claimed 16 lives and established their own talks on gun control.


Anyway, assuming the collective gathering of these people in April – hardly a peak time to visit a small town in south eastern Tasmania – was nothing more than a mere coincidence, assume also the mere coincidence that the Tasmanian government purchased a custom-made 17 seater hearse (no other state in Australia had the facilities to ferry that many bodies to and from the morgue) in 1995. Assume further that all but a fortnight after his re-election and 5 months out from the shooting, Bill Clinton travels to Australia to meet new Prime Minister John Howard, as if he had nothing more immediately pressing in his own camp to attend to. Assume that parliament can draft legislation from scratch and pass it through as law within 12 days without an investigation, report or preparation using Xerox, Windows 95 and dial up-internet. Assume this, and many other convenient truths and we are left with – to me – the most difficult of truths to bridge. We are left to believe that a left-handed loner with an IQ of 67 (that puts his intelligence and abilities in the bottom 10% of 11 year olds) walks into a café and kills 22 people with 29 bullets in the space of a minute, firing from the hip with his right hand. The ambidextrous shooter then leaves the café, fires three more shots for three more kills (a mother carrying a child and her other child on the run) before putting two more bullets through a vehicle windscreen, killing both the driver and passenger.


This kind of accuracy is beyond what trained military personnel can achieve – let alone firing from the hip with your wrong hand. There can only be one of two scenarios – either there were multiple shooters or the individual was a highly trained, highly skilled marksmen genetically engineered to be a cross between James Bond and Rambo. The shooter was simply not Martin Bryant.


At risk of disrespecting the lives lost that day, that will be the last reference to fiction and make believe…beyond reference to the entire “official story”. The series of events then continues that Bryant returned to the Seagate Guesthouse where he fired 250 rounds at police, who were ordered not to fire back (what??). Bryant then has a telephone conversation with a police negotiator for which the audio seems obviously scripted before he passes out and sets fire to the house. It is quite apparent that Bryant, a man with no family, no friends and no one to ask questions, was supposed to die in that blaze – closing the circle on the official story of the Port Arthur Massacre and leaving no questions asked.


Unfortunately the blaze awakes Bryant from his drugged up slumber and he lives. He initially pleads not guilty, making a public statement that he was unaware of any events occurring at the Broad Arrow Café. What do we do now? There will be a trial. There will be ballistics reports. There will be questions. Enter state-appointed defence lawyer John Avery who is ‘conscious of the public interest’ and finally informs the Court of Bryant’s confession after 6 months in absolute isolated solitary confinement. Avery has since been sentenced to over 4 years prison and disbarred from legal practice after being found guilty of stealing and misappropriation.


It appears to me that even if a handful of factors in the Bryant case turn out to be true then there is reasonable doubt about whether he was the shooter. Questions need to be asked. To me, Bryant was a pawn to be sacrificed in an insidious and sinister game of population control. In more recent times questions exist about the Las Vegas shooting – the most heavily monitored square kilometre of land in the world is the Vegas strip. You can’t pick your nose without being broadcast on CCTV, however somehow another drugged-up loner smuggles in an arsenal of weapons that could arm a small nation. No footage emerges. Two witnesses, Dennis and Lorraine Carver, report multiple shooters at the event and were found dead weeks later in a car crash that then burst into flames (eliminating evidence). There is similarly no footage to emerge from the Parkland shootings in Florida to which there are reports of multiple shooters and one witness, Alexa Miednik, says she was with the self-confessed gunman when they heard the shots. I wonder what will happen to her…


Law does not shape morality – morality shapes law. That is to say, a government cannot pass a law that the people do not support. It will be rejected. One must first control attitude and sentiment; frame the morals of the public. How then is morality controlled if it can’t be legislated? It is controlled by fear. This is the only tool available to lawmakers in order to persuade public sentiment. Fear and outrage. The only way that the citizens of the United States will voluntarily disarm themselves by voting to amend the Second Amendment is if the government creates fear and outrage amongst the population directed at guns. For people to hand in their guns willingly and centralise gun ownership to the military and the police something awful needs to happen…and continue to happen…until sentiment shifts in the population and they actively picket to have their Constitutional rights removed.


Which brings me to the most abysmal display of arrogance and ignorance that millennials are yet to involve themselves in: the “March for Our Lives”. Oh, spare me. If these kids were really interested in ‘marching for lives’ then they would march to end the wholesale murder of people by US forces in the Middle East. It would march to end the occupation of Palestine by Israel. It would march to end the attack on a democratically elected government in Syria. It would march to outlaw heart disease, obesity, McDonalds and processed foods. It would march to end suicide. These people don’t have a genuine concern about saving lives – they’re marching “voluntarily” in support of a view they are manipulated into supporting.


As far as figures go (and I know figures are boring), about 1.5% (it’s actually less than this, but I’m trying to be generous to the “gun control” cause) of annual deaths in the USA are from firearms. About 60% (of that 1.5%) are suicides and 30% are murders (by police or otherwise). The rest are pretty much accidents or military training. A miserly one percent of all firearm deaths are from mass shootings – that is to say, 1% of the 1.5% of total deaths. A number too incalculable to comprehend in the context of the media rampage. On the other hand, the USA has been responsible for between 2 – 4 million Muslim deaths since October, 2001. At home, 25% of all deaths in the USA are from heart disease. Go figure.


If you want to march, share and shout about gun violence and “rights to live” then go for it. But do it knowing that this has not been your decision and that you are doing nothing to help save lives. You have been played like a fiddle. Taking foreign policy out of contention, if the media and government wanted to support saving lives then it would campaign against the 121 suicides in the USA per day. Not the 17 victims of Parkland. Don’t tell me the government and media are here for our protection. Don’t tell me that gun centralisation is not high on the government hitlist. Don’t tell me the media couldn’t be reporting on actual endemic causes of death. Instead, they focus on a cause of death that that is literally a fraction of a percent. I understand that my utilitarian look on these 35 Port Arthur and 17 Parkland lives seems a little hypocritical in the face of an argument that ostensibly questions the government’s “greater good” policy however my point is this:


“If the government and media were really interested in pushing the population to care about one another, to support each other, to foster an environment of love and safety then they would not sensationalise these “mass shootings”. They would encourage us to look at the real killers – mental health, big pharma, military actions and poor nutrition. I’m not saying I’m 100% right about this, Martin Bryant or in fact anything, but it has to raise questions – the notion that focus is centred on this 0.0001% of annual deaths has to suggest that there are other motives at play.”


And that is the worst comment one could make on the current state of humanity. What a world to live in – I might just go shoot myself.