Politics & Spot the Corporate Psychopath

Yes they live amongst us. Its a worry because its not always detectable and sometimes when it is, we tend to over come our eyes and almost choose not to see it. Everyone sneers at used car salesmen yet how is it there's still such an occupation? We know what some of them are like but we shelve it and our radar, buy the car & when we're let down, (which thankfully is not always) we see all the signs we conveniently chose to ignore.

The corporate psychopath has some parallels here. They can manipulate, they pounce on situations where emotions can be exploited, all the while being fairly dead to their own emotions. The can have a narcissistic streak looking for praise and highness or be more subtle and just collect higher office and reward but make no mistake, they will have worked their way to the top with hidden ruthless pursuit.

Does it happen in politics? Yes, yet to hear of a professional endeavour that is without it. Yes, they live among us. They're fairly intelligent, fairly ruthless not from overcoming emotions about doing others out of just reward not from overcoming feelings of guilt. No they generally have no feelings of remorse, regret or guilt whatsoever. But like autism, its has a spectrum and perhaps to an extent we all have a little corporate psychopath in us.

Mark Latham, probably not so much. Bold, brash, loud, unapologetic for sure. Subtle manipulator, using others emotions to help his own elevation? Perhaps but more so it looks like elbows out crash or crash through.

In one job I had I was going to be working with inmates of a high security prison. We did the day long orientation, toured the entire prison except the cells. Walked amongst the prisoners and yes sat through a training video. One of the biggest angles they pushed was grooming. Prisoners are 24/7 under constant watch, guards are on constant guard yet grooming happens and every now and then a guard is successfully groomed and talked into doing something they're trained to avoid. They manipulated and tricked into smuggling something in, providing favourable treatment and the list grows from there. Prisoners may or may not be natural born corporate psychopaths in a low job, but they soon learn the behaviour, learn the tricks and learn what rewards are available for them when successful. Even if its just a release from boredom.

If it can happen in a prison, if it can successfully work in a highly regulated environment with such close personal scrutiny then why can it not work anywhere. Why can't it work in the political system?
It can and hitting google you can find a number of sites that list the traits to look for.

Are they good or bad, well bad but properly contained they may actually be good. Sounds like a psychopath managing a psychopath but no, if there are tight fitting rules, people know them well and keep them then a person with a shade of psychopathy might be a key driver in getting things done but the trouble is, most garden variety psychopaths aren't out to chop people's heads off, but they are genuinely out to advance themselves at whatever cost to others. Cost to others is of no interest nor concern, the reward to the self is. When they seem emotionally empathetic, they're not. They're using a tool to open a door and gain access to that which they have not earned and that maybe reward or higher office.

I know of one journo/politician scenario where both have had a long history of grooming the other and its possible neither think they've been used. There's a lot more spotlight on the journo so if I was to point to one I think is the corporate psychopath, its probably the politician, or more so the politician.

Malcolm Turnbull is a very intelligent man. He may well be the smartest man in the room where ever he goes, but he's had some appalling judgement at times. Psychopathy though? Possible but I'm not 100% sure. Gillard, Rudd, Abbott, Bishop...yeah they could make the short list of highly likelies.
In WA...well there's a couple of contenders & they're not at the top of their game nor necessiarly in the highest office yet. There's been a couple of spectacular implosions including Buswell, Johnson, Nalder but whilst they may have been stand outs at various times it may not by psychopathy. Least likely Buswell who when working was said to be on his game nearly all the time and all over his portfolios. It was his out of hours performance that couldn't be contained by him or others that led to his downfall, but he was a good parliamentary performer, a bright light in his ministries and had he kept a clean sheet after hours is probably THE one most likely to have been remembered as our greatest Premier ever. It wasn't to be.

There are some folk who say nothing and nowhere is more political than inside the party, any party, all parties. That's the hot bed where the corporate psychopath will be spotted. Its not easy and its easy sadly to dismiss the signs, in fact it may be the closer you are to them, the much harder it is to see.

If you're semi close to them, google the list, learn the traits to spot them. If you're a journalist, here's is your play ground for earth shattering scoop. Whilst narcissistic self love is not uncommon in Parliament, its not everywhere and shouldn't be mistaken for corporate psychopathy. When you find it though, you find all the things that lead to WA Inc.

Why its hardest for the journos to spot? They're close to it, its harder to spot and if they've been groomed they won't know and its pretty much invisible to them. When pointed out to them they'll probably instinctively deny it and make excuses for the psychopath.

They live among us, they're heading to the top and most of us don't realise we're stepping stones.

The Duopoly Problem & Live Export

So I was asked where do each of the parties in the 2017 WA State Election stand on Live Export Trade? I had to ask the question, why now is that viewed as important to the State Election. I asked that because I though Live Export was off the radar, not current and it was ticking along with no problem.

Wrong.

Well no prizes for guessing where the Greens stand. They want Live Export Banned completely once and for all. WA Labor have a platform which actually has about 6 issues in it and one is Live Export. Their platform is to bring on more demand for Chilled Meat overseas and develop the Chilled Trade to slowly replace Live Export to lessen cruelty.

Now that's coded for, slow approach with careful narrative to hide "Ban Live Export NOW"

Federal Labor brought in the suspension of the Live Export Trade. It was a poor knee jerk reaction that had devastating results on producers and helped cause a massive Animal Welfare problem where stock could not be sold during a drought and there was nowhere to kill & process them all in Australia let alone sell them overseas. It was disgusting display of grub like parasitic popularist vote hunt. It failed on every level, failed producers, failed the overseas customers and failed the animals...and it failed to add popularity or votes to the Gillard government. They're at it again, chase the Green like inner city vote without letting on the real intent is to Ban the Live Trade.

Liberals? Not a lot better. Its rather confusing if you follow Colin Barnett's comments on Live Export over the last 3 or 4 years.

"I would hope that maybe over the next 10-15 years, we can progressively transition the industry from live exports to chilled meat or carcass exports,'' Mr Barnett told reporters in 2011

In October 2013, Premier Colin Barnett witnessed the signing of an MoU with WA's sister state Zhejiang province for new trade arrangements, including live cattle.

2014 he blasted Clive Palmer's comments for putting Live Export deal with China backwards.

In April 2014  Barnett stated "We support, done safely, both uranium mining and fracking,” he added. “And if we succeed in leasing out Fremantle Port, we will build at government expense, a purpose built live animal export facility.
“Not only (is that) important for the survival of that industry but also important for animal welfare standards.”

We're not sure where he stands on it now, it'll be like firearms regulations...they have a view, but don't want to share it. Still Labor is profoundly vague too. He went from saying it was a sunset industry in its death throws, to Clive Palmer is helping wreck it by calling the Chinese "mongrels" to saying the Liberals would lease out Fremantle Port and build "at government expense a purpose built live animal export facility" - Will it happen? Your guess is as good as mine, more so if you think its not going to happen on Barnett's watch or Harvey's watch when she takes the leadership soon after the election. So does is the industry in decline or does it need infrastructure expansion?
Colin...any clarity on offer? Ever?

NationalsWA and the Shooters, Fishers & Farmers Party both have clarity, both are pro Live Export. Rick Mazza attended a Ban Live Export rally in Fremantle to get people's views and see if they're coming from a credible base. Rick, its worth remembering instigated and chaired the Committee on the workings of the RSPCA in WA. Fortunately non of the protestors knew who Rick Mazza was so he got honest answers that he could assess without being hassled.

If we're to transition to Chilled in the next 10-15 years (its not) I'd like to know who exactly is changing from Live to Chilled, who's paying for all the WA slaughterhouses that will have to be built, all the processing plants that currently don't exist and can all the overseas markets not only transition but drive the demand.

Its a curly issue both halves of the duopoly don't want full focus on lest you ask serious questions.
One wants to help push the drive to chilled, with no plan, costing nor strategy...just enough sentiment to gather some Green hipster soy latte votes. The other says "it" will transition but doesn't say who's driving the change, customers or the exporters...or who's going to pay for all the infrastructure and skilled staff that would be needed. It doesn't add up & hence the duopoly are just throwing out a profoundly vague glib vote message and then themselves transitioning quickly onto the next issue.

Another reason why the duopoly have nothing to offer except false echoes of empty thought bubbles whilst NatsWA & SFFP are very clear. They support Live Export and the jobs it maintains.

The vague thought balloons on Live Export are one of the few things the Duopoly have mentioned and pushed to the side. Agriculture is an important primary industry, a vital exporter and employer. It should be a party of this country's National Security.

But the duopoly is decidedly silent on Agriculture. Its as if they're obliged to have an Agriculture ministry but its obligations stop at allowing it a place in cabinet and its almost as if its one of the lesser minor portfolios.

Vote for whoever you want. By all means if you want to vote for the Duopoly do so but consider only doing it in the lower house and in the Upper House vote for Nationals or SFFP. If you can vote for them in the Lower House all the better, but at least help install a circuit breaker to protect the state, at the very least vote Nats or SFFP in the Upper House.

Your vote is important, crucial and more important to future proofing this state than your realise.

WA State Elections & the Unthinkable Positive Outcome

Fun yet likely or not? List all the current electoral seats held by the duopoly. Labor & Liberal seats. And list them with the safest at the top going down to marginal and highly in doubt.
You'd expect Colin Barnett's seat to be somewhere near the top of the Liberal's list and Mark McGowan somewhere near the top of Labor's list and it'd scale downwards. Much of the order or rankings would probably be guesswork unless you rank them on last election's prowess. Its lower down the list seats that interest me and those owned by the crossbenches/minor parties.

It means that for forming government, there's possibly 2 battlegrounds and to some extent the impact of the "Deplorable Vote" is going to have some sort of effect.

There's the 2nd Tier parties & then there's the 3rd Tier. Third tier being the Independents or the candidates from the very minor parties who rarely if ever win a seat but do hold small preferences. They're often so minor an influence that they aren't chased after for a preference deal. That may remain the case and they may not be chased for anything at all unless they win their seat because its possible the next WA Parliament could be a close call. One smart commentator said that even though the election is close, its 3 months out and it could be the longest 3 months prediction wise. He went onto say it could be a landslide or a hair splitting photo finish come March with his prediction now being a toss of the coin.

Perhaps the 3rd Tier candidates will have little effect at all and perhaps the big battlefield will be the "Deplorable Voters" who like Brexit, Trump, Australian Federal Election and the Orange By-election delivered results no one predicted. The "Deplorable" might tip out a small number of safe seats in the metro areas.

Second battlefield might be non metropolitan seats in both Lower & Upper Houses of WA's Parliament. The effect of the deplorables I think is sensed by more than a few groups and probably the driving motivation of Pauline Hanson's One Nation (PHON) to run as many candidates as possible in the WA election.

The PHON may have enough time to get over the damaging Rodney Culleton effect. PHON has one other problem though, its very eastern states run and managed. Pauline came over to oversee the pre-selection process and personally vet aspiring candidates. Does Pauline have a position on WA's unfair slice of the GST, on the timely Mining rental agreement update or the sale of Western Power. There's one she has commented on (and I'll have to look for the others) and that's the Mining Rental Fee. She opposes it but I think she's badly misread the majority sentiment in WA. Her eastern states bias may undo some of her desired vote. And where do their preferences go? At a guess, the safer bet would be the Liberal Party.

The Shooters Fishers & Farmers Party. Well, hot on the back of the Orange By-election the SFFP have quite rightly got new found confidence. They currently have 2 good MPs and at very very worst they could maintain that number. They're regionally focused, outdoors focused but do seem to have very Liberal Party leanings on some issues. Stab in the dark betting would see them probably put preferences to the Liberal Party. If the deplorables vote & Tier 2 party preferences are likely to have a big impact, then its worth remembering that SFFP are likely to be running both Lower & Upper House candidates.

In the eastern states the SFFP & the Nationals are cat n dog despite some areas of common ground. They may agree on some issues, including a responsible approach to firearms legislation but they're usually vying for the same seats and gloves are off. In the eastern states the SFFP want to replace the Nats not partner with them.

The NatsWA have a fight on their hands, yet they seem to be at every election and they tend to roll up their sleeves and dig in. Brendon Grylls has to some extent returned the Nats to the old "blood nose politics" angle which has been lost from their tool kit for a very long time. Thing is, if the Nationals aim is to effect good change they have to have a presence in cabinet, therefore they have to help form government in a coalition or partnership with the Liberals. More than a few times, the Liberals needed them. NatsWA will most likely preference the Liberals as well. In the seats where Liberals come 3rd place in the count, the Nationals should expect to be more positive and gain Liberal preferences. Where its close between Liberal & Nationals, the PHON & SFFP preferences could get Libs over the line. In fact wherever the Libs poll 1st or 2nd place, they could still win with preferences from any or all of the three 2nd tier parties.

Or the unthinkable might happen...

The NatsWA & the SFFP could shock everyone and form a partnership before any LNP coalition/partnership of a traditional sense is discussed. SFFP have the awkward position of knowing that both parties in the duopoly, Liberal & Labor are keen to see firearms legislation clamp down harder and harder. PHON are out to lunch yet NatsWA have candidates looking and assessing it. Whether the Nats get an actual firearms policy or not is debatable but both SFFP & Nats are rural, regional keen, both are firearms sensible (ones I've spoken with), both industry & agricultural focused, both jobs focused and strangely both might preference the Liberals. If they don't get a partnership agreement sorted they could cancel each other out at the next election and deliver one or two crucial seats to the Liberal party...along with the PHON preferences.

This returns us to the original guess...it'll be a landslide or close as a cut throat razor. Or somewhere in the middle, preferences might deliver seats to the major parties.

Now the best thing for rural WA, in my mind at least, would be to see a SFFP/NatsWA partnership agreement/preference deal. The likelihood?
Well...

Its always possible, but it would be a huge political shock because it would be very unexpected. If the eastern states influence is too great or the norm then the chances of a SFFP/NatsWA partnership will be roughly the same as a paper dog chasing an asbestos cat through hell.

I'm hoping for some sort of SFFP/NatsWA alliance but suspect it might not happen. Irony being, their own respective zeal to beat each other might help deliver more seats to the Liberal Party.

I've had one Pollie Scratchy bet...against my better judgement. Not making another but I'm hoping that in a world of vast political differences the Nats & the SFFP in WA realise they can make a difference or they'll probably inadvertently deliver seats to the Liberals.

Then there's the other thing...that maybe the real winners at the next election will be those elected but who are in opposition. The real losers may well be all of us if we don't see some good strong policies and smart strategic statesman like vision.

When we come under attack, where will we stand?

Recently I was told that if World War 2 popped up now many young people would ask if their Play Station be affected as a priority question. Perhaps some folk, of any age, cannot be relied upon to be a part of the solution like most people did during WW2. I think the majority would. When threat looms large, usually as it gets closer people band together.

Melbourne has seen raids just before Christmas of a thwarted plan of an "Islamist Terrorist" attack upon Australian soil during Christmas. I commend Malcolm Turnbull for actually using the word "Islamist" in his press briefing because I was expecting a completely De-religioned press conference.

At some point though we may have to stop calling them terrorist attacks or at least define closely what a terrorist does and what terrorism is. If its purely to cause terror, there are plenty off criminal offences that fall into that category some of the not religious.

Point is, some of them are terror attacks as part on some people's RELIGIOUS WAR. Whilst there is in some places like Australia no set battlefield with set lines of defence nor No Man's Land between them, it is still a war with a battlefield.

When we finally accept this then yes we need to use all the weapons at our disposal such as security & intelligence groups, state & federal police and their task forces. These groups are in some ways front line, but they shouldn't be the only defensive weapon we use.

At some point, we're going to have to accept it is for some a religious war and engage with that enemy at the gate, or within our borders with the same rules of engagement they use. No not blowing them up with improvised bombs, no something far more devastating and effective.

Use the hardest weapon to defend against in a Religious War.

Proper in context exegesis of the Scriptures they're using to valid their murder. If a so called Christian group were planning to wear suicide vests and take hostages in an Australian city, you'd hope the security forces could prevent it and if not prevent halt it.  But if it looked like young at risk men of military age are being recruited and fooled with an evil and murderous interpretation of the Bible then alongside all other reasonable actions there should be religious leaders coming together to cite chapter & verse of the Bible to show, using God's Word why it is not only evil but anti-Christ doctrine.

If Christianity's scholars, leaders and preacher did not then it might be time to ask why. If it isn't intellectually possible using those Scriptures then the religion is a false religion and possibly should be left out of Australian culture & society. It certainly should if Scripture demanded followers to kill, maim, terrorise, destroy in "God's Name".

Clerics need to use Scripture to fight the evil "done in God's name" or they are doing evil against mankind and God.

This then applies to all religions. If Buddhists self illuminated or killed atheists, humanists, agnostics, Muslims or Christians here then yes its a religious war. If a strange minor religious offshoot of any religion attacked, its a religious war. If one person on their own, with no input from others decided an attack needs to happen for their god then yes its a religious attack in a religious war and good in context exegesis must be played out loudly in public to deter others falling for the falsehood and following suit.

If the Melbourne attack is an offshoot of Islam then yes, we need Islamic Scholars & clerics to not come out and say "we don't support these actions" or "this is not what we're about". We need the scholars & clerics to come out and present chapter and verse exegesis to explain to followers why, by their scriptures, these actions are evil, are apostate and based on Apostate's Heresy. They want to kill in God's name, the clerics need to explain why its against God's word & why these actions are not going to produce 76 virgins but be a first class hell bound ticket.

Proper in context exegesis explaining these action are the work of apostates & heresy is the only real immunisation for religious war at the source point. Leaving it in a reactionary mode for security services to react with force might be needed but its not preventative.

Malcolm Turnbull hosted a banquet for a group of Muslims breaking their fast at the end of the religious feast. Instead of accommodating them & enabling them to remain out of the fight, he should be enlisting them to help end it.

If not, why.

New to Guns? Adler 101

Before we even start...if a politician says to you "We don't support a watering down of gun regulations" or "We don't want a US Gun Culture here" or "You don't need 5 shots" or "7 shots aren't necessary" then you're talking with people who are arguing from a position of complete falsehood. Be wary of them.

We cannot have a US Gun Culture or US Gun Laws, its not constitutionally possible nor viable or even remotely possible, to suggest we're heading that ways highlights ignorance. A fine place to be arguing law changes from.

The Adler is 100% legal in this country as a Cat A whether its 5 shot or 7 shot. That's a fact and so is the fact no one is asking for that to be watered down. Arguing from falsehood again.

Another fact, if it goes to Cat D it is in WA the same category as the belt fed machine gun because all Cat Ds are prohibited in WA. If someone wants 7 shot in Cat D and 5 Shot in Cat B they should have the decency and intellectual fortitude to say why...exactly why.
What we're seeing is political Distraction, arguing from falsehood and ignorance.

Mistrust the ignorant one lying to you or arguing from falsehood or ignorance. "Not Necessary" isn't a reason...right now 7 shots is Cat A legal, it isn't a problem, hasn't seen any Lever Action in a siege, massacre, terror attack or any crime to date. "Watering down" red flag time signalling arguing from ignorance. Can't get that simple bit right, can't be assured of getting much else right.

Now with that, read on :-)

In essence there's nothing wrong with being pro or anti gun. Its what you do & say with that premise that's important and whether or not you go wider than the first premise and use facts, data and reason when going elsewhere it. Some on both sides are not so here's some background that might be useful for those forming or trying to form a view or stance

GK Chesterton is quoted as saying "Whenever you remove any fence, always pause long enough to ask why it was put there in the first place."

This doesn't just apply to those seeking to water down legislation, it applies to all legislative changes, whether its strengthening, weakening or abolishing. Its very much, what is the status quo & why is it so? Its not to prevent a change, its to ensure the change is a useful improvement, a rightful change and not impetuous or heavily bias away from fact.

So how does the Adler issue rate? Very poorly as much of the push came from misdirection and lacked some understanding and fact.

The Adler is a Lever Action 12 Gauge Shotgun. It was initially put together by the wholesaler/importer Nioa to be a 7 shot Lever Action Shotgun that would be available under Cat A which is one of the less restricted firearms classes. Now despite the current fervour, that was 100% legal in all states of Australia, it was going to be good to go everywhere as Cat A. In fact, remember this if nothing else, a 5, 7 & even a 10 shot lever action shot gun has had a home in Cat A since the John Howard's revamp of laws in 1996. It probably stayed in its rightful place of Cat A back then because there'd been no siege, massacre, terrorist act or even a violent crime with one then nor since...well I'm still trying to find one but looks like I'm going to have to go back to before World War 2 but the records aren't good so best I can say is, its not the criminals choice and can't find where a crim has used one

But lets check to see why the fence was built that way in the first place.

Its actually very simple. The firearm is a "Single Shot Repeater" meaning it can only fire one shot at a time. Once fired you have manually unload the spent shell, you have to manually load the next live round & then manually pull the trigger to fire it.

One media commentator referred to it as a "DEFACTO SEMI AUTOMATIC"
This is baseless, false & misleading because if you look at it closely its actually a "FULLY MANUAL FIREARM ACTION". Semi automatic means part of the firing action is automatic & in the case of a Semi Automatic, you fire the trigger and it automatically ejects the spent round, loads the next live round ready for your next manual trigger pull. Part of the process is automatic hence the term SEMI automatic. You cannot call it defacto semi automatic unless you're trying to trick people who are unaware and when it comes to legislation don't allow anyone to use deception.

High Capacity? - Well no its not, many revolvers have 5. 6, 8 & even 10 rounds in the them for competition use. Most owners of rifles, which like Lever Action Shotguns, are fully manual single shot repeaters. Most have magazines that hold 10 rounds, some as high as 25 rounds. The capacity isn't really a banning issue.

Rapid Fire? - Well compared to what? And that is the problem, there's no fence checking here either. The fact is a double barrel shotgun is faster than a lever action shotgun when firing 2 rounds, because a double barrel can fire 2 rounds as once. This is universally jumped upon by some folk when they declare "That of course it is but if you fire your "high capacity" magazine off the firing rate is much higher with the lever action".
To be fair this is quite correct, but to be properly accurate, please be aware a double barrel is faster with 2 rounds, a lever action 5 round shotgun is faster when shooting 5 rounds but when you shoot 10 rounds a lever action is actually slower than a double barrel.
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAHEi3a08wE )
Deadliest & Highest Power 12 Gauge ever - Now these are the 2 main reasons that are put forward and also fall flat.
Its 12 gauge, only variance in power is between the different shell sizes you can buy, flat nothing to do with the firearm nor its action. None.
If you want to see a rapid fire shotgun click on the link below, Winchester SX which is not allowed in WA fired 12 shots in 1.44 seconds. Now compare that to the supposed Adlers 8 shots in 8 seconds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCB7uEQ9W9A

So what you need to ask is not whether someone is pro or anti Adler or pro or anti Lever Action but ask this...

Q) The lever action shotguns with 5 and 7 shot magazines are currently completely legal in WA (and the rest of Australia) on Cat A licence, so what Category should the 5 shot be and what Category should the 7 shot be on...and why?

If you want to help them, explain no lever action shotgun has been used in a siege, massacre, terrorist act or mass killing. Currently its only accessible to people who've passed the vetting process, police clearances and firearms handling course...they have to be a fit & proper person which raises the question why can a fit & proper person get it now in 5 or 7 shot but shouldn't?
Why also should it be changed so a fit & proper person be allowed 5 shot but not a 7+ shot?
Why?

The onus is on legislators to explain why its been ok to have one for over a century, its been Cat A since John Howards law changes but suddenly just 2 extra shots for approved fit & proper persons are super deadly threats to citizens. It is not a question of why do shooters need it, its why do anti shooters think its a health & safety issue. The current status quo has been fine. We need a bit more than "you don't need it"

It is a debacle of an issue, where Sovereign Over Reach by the Feds has got this far because so many opposition MPs have virtually no understanding of the Import Ban, the current legislation or why just 2 extra shots afforded to a qualified & approved shooter under the regulations turns them from a fit & proper person into a serious threat to society.

Late Edit - Here's what you're up against. 'We have a stance, its profoundly vague and we're keeping it that way...and we're not giving you any hint of any detail nor the reasons why...just it is, but we're not saying exactly what "is" might be or why...never any why oh & vote for us because of the reasons we haven't given you
Sir Humphrey Applebee would be overcome with joy & pleasure.

Don't believe me? Read on

 

Post Truth, Post Fact - How did we get here?

It is a strange planet we live on now. Truth is considered first casualty of war, but seems its a pretty massive casualty in in peace time too.

Donald Trump made all sorts of claims whilst campaigning that he's stepped away from since becoming President elect. Maybe no wall between USA & Mexico with Mexico paying for it. Hillary would be in jail. All puff n bluster he's stepped away from but all silly comments at best.

And he's not the first or the last to say things that clearly were false with little or no accountability, correction & worse still regret.

In 2012 the then PM Tony Abbott said “What you’ll get under us are tax cuts without new taxes,” and “no cuts to education, no cuts to health”. He won the election 2013 & what was his first budget move? He cut funding for schools and hospitals by $80 billion & introduced a new deficit tax, plus a $7 GP tax.

Non Core Promise I guess.

When Abbott was health minister in 2004 before the election Abbott gave “an absolutely rock solid, iron-clad commitment” not to change the Medicare safety net then after the election raised.
His apology? Well close as it got was... “I am very sorry that that statement back in October has turned out not to be realised by events,”

John Howard was the creator of the "core" and "non core" promises. He also said no GST "NEVER EVER" and once elected promptly brought one in.

Bob Hawke - In 1987 prior to the election said “By 1990 no Australian child will be living in poverty.” - Never happened, still waiting. Perhaps what he said was “By 1990 no Australian child will be living in politics.”

In 1993 Paul Keating promised & delivered two lots of income tax cuts, which he famously spruiked as being "L-A-W LAW". He then repealed the legislation so perhaps he meant "L-I-E LIE"

Gillard & Rudd share some dubious commonalities. Whilst both were PM's both knifed each other to get the position whilst the other was in the Prime Minister's office. He's notable for promising a carbon price and then dumping the idea, she's notable for opposing a carbon price & then introducing it.

It is a strange part of the human condition that more we expect people to lie, the less upset we are about it. If the Dalai Lama or a nun or an Australian of the Year sold you a low mileage car which turned out to be a high mileage lemon they turned the speedo back on, well you'd go nuts and so would anyone else. A used car dealer does it and yes you'd probably be peeved but there won't be any community outrage. It'd be half expected even if unfairly so.

We more than half expect a politician to lie. A statesman no, but a run of the mill pollie, well yes.

This is why when questioned politicians use tactics they've been soundly coached in. Up pops a questions, ask another question to deflect then turn head to another reporter before being held accountable. Don't give an answer, give a tactical reply, apportion blame to the opposing side of politics and attack their angle, be sure to find, create or infer an angle, deliver the blow, then turn the head at the door stop and take another question...or scurry away. There is always one reporter there who is sympathetic, who'll ask a less harrowing question, always one trying to get a door opening relationship going by not being to "investigative"
Strange twist is, we're currently enjoying a time when more journalists & reporters than ever (not all though) will tackle an MP head on without fear or favour. This is diminished somewhat by the fact many press gatherings are staged, managed and heavily pre-planned. The agenda is largely set by those aligned with the MP, only the sudden door stop allows proper sunlight to flood in but generally they're fast, quick matters and can be walked through by an MP under the pump.

MPs are more managed and indeed owned and operated by their party machine than they are by the electorate. More often the MPs represent the party in the electorate rather than represent the electorate in cabinet, the party room, the parliament. Stop and look see, if a candidate is really good then why does he or she need to wrap their name in tribal colours of a party?

Having said that, One Nation rose this time & last time due to the protest vote. Ricky Muir was elected to the senate from a protest vote, so too all the Palmer United members.

For now, the protest vote is here to stay. Liberal and Labor Duopoly have made sure of that as more people leave them they seek out an alternative.

Next state election Greens may rise in total votes a little, One Nation might get one MP up & running but think the big losers will be Libs & Labor. I think if Colin Barnett gets re-elected he won't do a full term as Premier. Think his plan is win power or if he loses government he'll retire from office sooner. I think the big winners, all things being equal and ignoring unforeseen things, will be Shooters, Fishers & Farmers Party and ironically The Nationals (WA). Even though both are at odds with each other greatly in the eastern states. Here the SFFP maybe the same as over east, but the Nationals have unique differences with their eastern brethren.

Whilst the Nats were handed an absolute belting in the NSW seat of Orange by the SFFP it may not translate to big seat loses in WA. SFFP main man in WA is Rick Mazza who has a very good, very respectable parliamentary record after just one term. In his first 2 years in the Upper House he sat on 4 standing/sitting committees and the RSPCA one he instigated & chaired. Many MPs managed just one committee in the same period of time.

For country people, these will be the 2 main parties for traditional country voters but the Liberals & Labor both have very large and solid foundation in some non Perth seats.

I'm keeping tabs on a couple of notable MPs and seeing how they go in the "Post Truth/Post Fact" stakes.

Whilst time will tell a couple of things are well assured. We have tough economic times ahead. We're likely to see hung or near hung parliaments as a norm not an exception and the biggy...if you seek political how to vote advice, just remember this...

Now more than ever, your vote DOES count so think seriously for a lot more than a minute and cast it wisely. I'm leaning towards a larger number of voters leaving the Labor/Liberal duopoly and heading towards Nats WA & the SFFP and One Nation being the Wild Card full of unknowns. But your dart board is as good as mine and being a Post Truth era being completely incorrect doesn't make you the least bit wrong it seems ;-)

Funny old world

Firearms, Politics, Parties, Issues and a Funny Old World

Its been a funny few weeks & several things all met at a cross roads that had me thinking sideways again.

A wealthy grazier I know, who I often talk politics with offered me a big chunk of money to start a political party. One that is centred on WA Seceding from the rest of Australia. I declined politely but took it on board. Days later mentioned it in passing to a well heeled businessman and he said he'd match it dollar for dollar, perhaps more. I went from thinking folly to curious thinking and in doing so mentioned to another farmer who is very much a political junky. He said he thought it was an idea of great merit and said he's pretty sure more dollar for dollar people would step up if I got serious.

Ok now it wasn't funny. I wasn't flattered, it wasn't about me its about the state of play in Australian politics that has caused the initial offer & talking about it to others clearly plugs into others with similar receptors. That or its a good idea, but its not about me, its the idea that has merit that needs checking.

Then today a person from a political party asked if I'd be interested in standing in the next State Election. OK now I'm beginning to wonder what is going on, but fact remains, its not me, not about me, its about the current turbulent state of play in WA & Federal politics. I don't think we've seen a more dysfunctional senate or at least never seen so many dud senators wielding such disproportionate levels of clout.

Issues, like the big issues aren't so dissimilar between parties. There's the big core issues. health, law & order, the budget, the debt, its serviceability, the economy, jobs, the future. Everyone wants improvement, everyone wants to capitalise on whatever opportunities they think are there. Difference is what they think the opportunities are & how improvements should be made.

Its the Tier 2 & 3 issues where I think protest votes will probably centre and where a small handful of seats may be tilted and possibly toppled. There's a swag of Tier 2 issues and fact is, for some folk these aren't Tier 2 or 3, they're major issues. Everyone has a view, some differ from mainstream but telecommunications, mobile coverage, internet line speed & cost, housing affordability, GM Crops, firearm regulations, same sex marriage, euthanasia, foreign ownership of farms/stations, selling of public assets...

There's these and a few others that are far more contentious issues. So much so I'm not likely to mention some are the ones that will fuel the protest vote. Those folk with the protest vote are those who are now looking, pointing fingers and uttering "bloody duopoly".

Its not just immigration that delivered seats to One Nation in the federal parliament. I'm not 100% sure what got Derryn Hinch elected exactly but generally it was a Trump like effort on his part to cash in on a protest vote pay out. And as for Senator Culleton, well I'm still wondering what the hell happened there and I guess Pauline Hanson is thinking and wondering what the hell she was thinking. I do know one Albany local who sought Pauline out in the main street when she visited here during the Federal campaign. He said his words to her were "Love your work but what's with picking Rodney Culleton? You seriously want to re-think it before its too late"

I'm thinking that could be ringing in her ears.

It appears it ain't over but its probably too late & it might hasten the One Nation implosion some commentators were predicting. I think it'll be Palmer United all over again, slow disintegration or maybe just one expulsion/resignation from One Nation and carry on as usual. The implosion may not be til the next ballot count.

One political chat today, firearms came up. I was asked how I felt about Port Arthur and immediately said "I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories if that's what you mean"

I was then challenged to research it further that it was all an evil government plot.

I pointed out that its irrelevant as the Howard Government solution was improper. Whether it be a false flag attack somehow or as I see it, exactly as the media suggested the response should not have been taking firearms away from law abiding firearms owners. The completely indisputable fact was it was portrayed as a mad gunman. My thought was, the mad gunman had no driver's licence, no firearms licence, bought illegal guns off the black market and had a mental condition that made it difficult for him to discern fact from fantasy. The Howard reaction should have been to target the black market gun trade, filthy gun smugglers and pour big buckets of cash into serious mental health. Fail, fail, fail. The response did not match the incident.

None of this was contested effectively hence it sailed through despite the angry reaction of firearms owners, there really was no proper cogent public debate or if so it was ignored. Policy came from a small set of the ruling class, facts could only be used if they aligned with the predetermined result and this has been a hallmark of policy making. Opportunity, political capital & ideology. The policy machine is built on those 3 cornerstones and facts & data have been dismissed from duty. The 2 main culprits in the decaying policy process, the Labor/Liberal Duopoly.

Whilst the Adler was clearly part of the protest vote in the Orange by-election, many other issues there also put the duopoly on the nose. Take into account the staggering size of the anti incumbent swing in that seat. SFFP may have only one by a paper thin margin, but the swing to get their is beyond Herculean. You'd think the 2 majors would be on notice, but alas, many are myopic and stuck on their own personal Tier 1 issues.

Another lady today spoke to me about firearms and referred to them as weapons. I corrected her by suggesting that its a firearm, not a weapon. A weapon only if used for killing or hurting people. Very very few firearms are used for that and only when they are, only then are they weapons. The term "weapon" is reliant on the intent. If you have firearms for shooting paper targets, you are not going armed in public, you are not brandishing a weapon. Simple things in the firearms debate that get lost, what hope do the real facts & stats have. Expect those affected most to vote a protest vote.

All in all, with a young family I'm not planning to enter politics now or in the foreseeable future.
Nor am I'm looking to start a new party to push for WA to secede from the Commonwealth...much as I half like that idea.
All in all, the suggestions and offers aren't about me, they're about the political state of play we're currently seeing. More divisive, non statesman like era, where deals are made because numbers are tight and we go from one nearly hung parliament to another.

I didn't make a prediction on Brexit, Trump or Orange, mainly because I couldn't. I did think they'd all be nearly-sorta-kinda-maybe-half close...but I didn't see those things going the way they did let alone as big as they did.

To be honest I wasn't even half close and whilst all delivered a result that out witted professional commentators, so far we only have the first result. We're yet to see the outcomes these protest votes might produce. Jury is out on our new senate too.

I can only make the simplest of predictions...

We haven't seen the last of the protest votes and most of them may not be centred on the big issues.
We haven't seen the first of the outcomes they might produce and good chance many will fall short of whatever promising hope they may have sparked in people's minds.

The duopoly is on the nose and the protest votes aren't always about the big things.
Sometimes they're just about the little people and what matters most to them.

That and some people in office forget they're also in the same family as the little people.

Chinese curse says "May you live in interesting times"

We are.

The Adler...AGAIN

So its arrived, crunch time for the 5 shot Adler Shotgun. It's likely the 7 shot be completely banned in WA & the 5 shot possibly banned or up to Cat C. Right now? Well right now 7 shot is 100% legal.
Check below for the link to the story. In short the NSW State Government who couldn't agree at the COAG meeting now do so its going to Category D.

Many odd things remain. A lever action shotgun has never been used in a siege, massacre or crime,  senate report was clear that the firearm of choice for criminals are handguns, sub machine guns & sawn off shotguns.

Should add, every cache of 9mm sub machine found & seized, nearly all were home made by criminal gunsmiths and a few were smuggled in. You can't make an Adler into a sawn off, well you can but it becomes a single shot.

Should add, its not rapid fire. If you fire only 2 shots a double barrel shotgun is quicker. If you fire 5 shots the lever action is quicker, if you fire 10 shots the double barrel is quicker or exactly the same. (Don't take my word for it, there's a firing comparison on Youtube)

All this happens AFTER the Orange by-election where the Shooters Fishers & Farmers Party won th unwinnable seat. In WA with a state election coming, "The Rod Culleton Effect" may see One Nation not get all the votes they hope and the SFFP may get more than many people expect. They're running a candidate in Brendon Grylls seat & I'm half expecting most rural seats in the Upper House and some Lower House seats to get SFFP Candidates.

It has been a total schamozzle this Adler thing. Its been smoke, mirrors, platitudes and skimming over of facts. Its run on emotion and very little else and the whole circus and threat of a full ban made it the high ground many shooters were going to stand firm on. It helped sell more Adlers than anything else oddly. Before Winchester and Chiappa made lever action shotguns. Readily available on Cat A. Now there's Emerald, Adler, Pardus, IAC and 4 other brands of lever action shotgun. The Adler itself sold over 8000. 2 years ago, well I'd never seen a lever action shotgun. They just weren't popular.

So what's the wash out? Well political parties will have to have a clear and concise position on the firearm if they're to limit some of the minor wash off of votes going to the minor parties like SFFP & to a lesser extent One Nation. My main contention is not whether the firearm is banned or allowed but whether a decision is made based on facts or emotion...or ignorance & bluff.

1. They're not rapid fire. firing 10 shots an Adler is not faster compared to a double barrel shot gun
2. They're not high capacity. 5 shot & 7 shot is lower capacity than what you can get for all rifles with detachable magazines. They're all 10 shot. Competition shooters in pistol shooting all use 10 shot magazines. Heck a Smith & Wesson Model 617 is a 10 shot revolver. Yes Cat H, but lever action is not high capacity.
3. No siege, massacre or crime has been committed with a lever action shotgun. Maybe there has but I've been searching for 12 months and can't find one. Most crimes are sawn off double barrel shotguns, hand guns or sub machine guns. Of them most are home made or smuggled into the country. The smallest portion are stolen. Less than 0.5%
4. The Adler, if it goes onto Cat D will be effectively banned in WA like a machine gun. The line is only available to professional shooters, which maybe the case in other states but in WA Cat D is police & military only. Adlers here will be gone unless there's some change to Cat D.
5. Currently some people, mostly primary producers can have a pump action shotgun, limited to 5 shots. Now if the Adler goes to Cat D, so too will pump actions. In other words, the only shotgun most people will be able to get is a single shot or double shotgun. The latter being able to fire as "rapidly" as a 5 shot lever action if you fire 2 shots or 10.
6. Then there's the issue of the import ban. Gun laws are state laws & Tony Abbott's ill considered ban helped sell more lever action shotguns than any ad campaign. He couldn't stop 7 shot Adlers, but he could ban the import and tell the states it remains in place until you change your laws to suit the federal government.
   THIS IS CALLED SOVEREIGN OVER REACH.
   Remember this and only my opinion but I think no one should vote for any party that agrees or allows or fails to oppose SOVEREIGN OVER REACH.
7. Buy back...one is coming for illegal firearms. Or at least an hand back amnesty is and it will therefore include Adlers & all the other brands of lever action shotguns. 
8. This absurd issue will not affect the elections in a number of metro seats. It will be viewed closely by the 800,000+ firearms owners. I'd expect some effect in the Upper House seats and more effect in preference allocation. We're currently in the longest stretch we've seen with hung or near hung federal parliaments. I expect savage horse trading to become more normal and legislative process to become slower and more "deal oriented".
9. Lastly, this could be the first step in real firearm wind back, indeed some are already hoping it is. On the potential endangered list will be 10 shot magazines in any calibre, pump actions on Cat C and possible any competitive pistol or revolver that's got 5 shot capacity or more.
10. FWIW, Port Arthur firearms, all illegal firearms bought off the black market by a gunman who didn't have a gun licence or a car licence. Lindt Café, illegal pump action shotgun, smuggled into Australia, used by a gunman with no firearms licence or even a driver's licence. The Sydney police worker brutally gunned down outside a Sydney police station, gunman had no firearms licence and the pistol was never sold in Australia, it was smuggled into Australia.
    
    Interesting times ahead and worst of all this could have the same affect as John Howard's clamp down in the 1990s. It saw a huge rise in the amount of PVC pipe & caps sold. Many firearms went "missing" and it effectively turned law abiding firearms owners into illegal gun owners. People who weren't likely to commit a crime, broke the law.
    The absurdity rolls on. Hopefully there'll be some real leadership, political leadership on the matter very soon.

http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/news/national/nsw-premier-mike-bairds-decision-to-remove-his-police-minister-proves-gamechanger-in-national-adler-debate/news-story/1d1735e8a7d1031d77db2176bdd78eec

Sunday Penalty Rates

And so it comes, more pushes for 7 day trading in country areas and always co-joined is the call for abolishing penalty rates. But what's it really work out to be?

Well the Federal Liberals and the State Liberals would be well aware of the Productivity Commission Report that Joe Hockey signed off on before he left politics and dived into the Diplomatic trough.

It stated that wages actually accounted for 47% of the cost of doing business. Now depending on how you closely crunch the numbers and which numbers you grab to crunch the effect is a little surprising.

Here's an indisputable fact...according to the report.

Wages account for 47% of a businesses cost.
Wages account for 100% of the workers income for working for the business. (yes being cheeky)

Abolishing penalty rates means the staff will take a pay cut of their 100% so as to reduce the business' 47%.

Now if, depending on the business they're effectively paying 8 days wages for 7 days work it comes out like this.

The wage earners in that case is taking a 12.5% pay cut.
The business will pickup a 5% saving on their whole budget.

Just check that again, the business is 5% wealthier and the staff are 12.5% poorer. If there's only 5% between being profitable and loss making I'd be very worried as a business owner about the business' model. Just wait until the Australian Interest rates get to 10 or 12% (they will eventually)

If the only place you can cut costs back is the wages and not from the other 53% then I'd be petrified.

One smart cookie has already suggested the business owners lessen their exposure by opening their doors on normal days & close on the days when penalty rates apply and go work for their opposition on those penalty days.
Think that's being cheeky, but it'd be a whole lot cheekier if it didn't have smart financial sense behind it.

Politics, Homer Simpson & Morality

ABC South Coast Radio Presenter Christine Layton today interviewed a UK Academic running a course that surrounds the idea that The Simpsons has some philosophical value, that Homer may be a "good" person. It may be a clever ploy by the academic to lure everyday people into paying for a one day course & generate some real interest into the often avoided field of ethics, morals & philosophy.

Then not long after I heard the news about protestors in the public gallery of Parliament House Canberra had super glued themselves to hand rails and were chanting "Where are your morals?" (among other things).

So it returns again to morals, what are they and where do they come from? I could go do a one day course but whilst it might cover numerous disciplines of philosophy or different schools of moral thinking it all might miss asking the question that pour sunlight onto the important foundations most won't touch when they utter the words moral, morals or morality in general.

Life & all creation has only 2 possible causes. Just two, not 3 or 4 just 2 and we don't have to go into evolutionary theory, Darwinism or anything to see some thinking doesn't have huge layers to it. Lets look at the 2 possible causes.

A personal cause or an impersonal cause.

A personal cause is for theists, those who believe in a literal creator God.

An impersonal cause is for non-theists, those convinced there is no God and all of the creation we see and know about (and no doubt more) came into being by accident, luck mixed in with scientifically understood processes.

God did it, or nature did it. There is no third option.

Morals however are very different. There is only one source of their beginning, a personal cause.
It cannot be a matter of scientifically known process, not physical, chemical or any other evolutionary trait. Morals came from SOMEONE.
Either God or in the case of an impersonally generated universe by a person who needed to help band people together for whatever reason/s.

In the case of God, they're expected to be Objective because what He says goes. They're not up for debate even though we might reject them, but if God made them its not subjective in nature, they're from a transcendent moral law giver who is perfect.

In the case of there being no God, well here's where the seat squirming for some can start. Now we get to a point of subjectivity. In fact go further, all the non God sources of morals or moral laws are now sitting under the term "Relative Morality".

Different people have different views on multiple wives vs one wife. Some cultures believed that cannibalism was not just fine but a part of their spiritual journey whereas the white explorer sitting in the pot might think its horrible immoral. Very relative, very subjective and centres around regional bias or localised cultural thinking.

Or even worse, all things are right if they're right for you...even if they're not right for others. Not common, but that's the logical extension of moral relativism. The vegan activist tells me it is immoral to eat meat. By what moral law, from what moral law giver?

The lion eats the antelope eats...has the lion breached a moral code?
Ironically I was told that I have no right to assert my dominance over another species and decide to relegate it to farm life so I can eat it. So I can take its life and eat it, that in doing so I'm being a wilful participant in slavery & murder through my vile act of Speciesism.

So the lion must be guilty under the same moral law. If the immoral slavery/murder we're guilty of is to be devoid of Speciesism then it must apply to ALL species. A lion eats an antelope, it needs to be charge for murder and if convicted sentenced to the same prison term as a person.

See how silly the Vegan Moral Premise is?

The other thing with Moral Relativism of the impersonal cause is, well it cannot be binding. Its a non binding thing because what you say is immoral & I say is moral are both right & neither are wrong, they're relative therefore a person with a different view cannot impose their moral law upon me, or they've been rather immoral by forcing me to adhere to a moral law I don't support. Much like me charging a big cat with murder for doing what animals do.

Whenever I hear someone claim something is immoral I fist wonder what the moral standard is they're using to make the moral claim. What system are they employing to make the moral judgement?

Strangely the Impersonal Cause type morality implodes, its a paradox that cannot sustain itself under its own rules.

Only the Personal Cause can. But even then if someone says something is moral or immoral and they have a Moral Code or Law given to them by a Transcendent Moral Law Giver they have to show where in their "Scriptures" its set out and how its supported by its own Scriptures.

Proper exegesis of the Quran will either support or condemn the act of terrorists.
In the case of the Bible, terrorists murdering innocent people is not support by the Bible, in fact its an abomination. The Spanish Inquisition, the burning of witches, the Crusades and a good number of other things ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE BIBLE.

Strangely though, under the impersonal cause, killing and stealing might not be ok, but they're not immoral technically. Whenever someone says something is immoral, ask "Immoral by what standard?"

BackPacker Tax & Twitter

Twitter, new to it but its good to use now I'm getting the hang of it. It relays opinion & facts and often they're mutually exclusive but watching a few other twitter people a couple of things popped up regarding the Backpacker Tax which need collecting together.

Firstly I'm getting sick of certain word overuse. Words like narrative, paradigm and a few others but there's one I'm liking a whole lot.

DUOPOLY.

It applies to the Coles/Woolworths duopoly pressing prices down on farmers either directly or by pressuring processors.

It also applies to the Liberal & Labor party positioning or rather dominance.

During the recent Federal Election the Backpacker Tax came up. Our local member for O'Connor said they'd "look at it later" and after the election he said he supported something closer to 19% despite his party wanting 32.5%. WA Nationals candidate John Hassell was pretty upfront that he was happy to not only fight for WA over the unfair GST allocation but also the Backpacker Tax and would cross the floor without hesitation.

The Back Packer Tax was forced out at 35.5% then compromised down to 19% and now down to 15%.

Now we should point out, when there's a compromise its because pressure was brought upon the incumbent. Sorry to say, this pressure was not from Rick Wilson, its come from Jaqui Lambie, Pauline Hanson, Nick Xenophon, David Leyonhjelm & others. Sadly again Rick Wilson made his claim pre election & close to zero since.

Labor cannot cross the floor & Liberal MPs refuse to.

Overall its been an utter debacle. It was said no one has covered themselves in glory over this issue. Dead right. Utter debacle.

It could be argued that in the last Federal Election campaign Rick Wilson said what he thought people needed to hear to secure votes or lessened electoral damage. Remember he was the one who said they'd "look at it" after the election. But he said he favoured 19% but didn't pipe up in support when others suggested 19%. In fact, we're still looking for any comment from him since the election.

So why blame both Liberal & Labor parties? Why complain about the duopoly?

Well in the last federal election the Liberal & Labor Parties came together to work out a preference deal that would see preferences from the Labor Party go to the Liberals if the Labor was coming third. This was done federally with even many WA Labor members unaware until the announcement was made. Two well known WA Laborites were well embarrassed as they thought the NationalsWA candidate would probably get over the line with the Labor preferences.

The Nationals/Liberal preference deal was also done over east due to the Coalition deal. Ironically whilst it meant the Liberals candidate Rick Wilson was very well placed preference wise it also spells out clearly that both members of the Liberal/Labor duopoly detest the NationalsWA.

Local card carrying union locals were stunned when they found out about the Liberal/Labor deal & felt cheated. The NationalsWA were clearly shafted as the last NationalsWA federal MP was Tony Crook who famously did cross the floor for WA whilst he was a federal MP. A party &/or candidate who is prepared to fight for WA is not going to be popular with the duopoly because the duopoly favours solely positive east coast outcomes.

Did someone say WA's unfair GST allocation of 30c in the dollar?

Yes someone did but they weren't from the duopoly, it sure wasn't Rick Wilson MP or an other WA based federal MP.

Duopoly votes sell you and your state out every single time. There is no blood nose politics in the duopoly, none. Not one ounce, the only fight the WA MPs put up is the fight to deliver tactical replies to justify the eastern states centred decrees when they come home & front voters...rare as that is.

Its possibly unlikely but my personal view is I'd like to see the NationalsWA break away from the federal Nationals so the NatsWA can do their own preference deal to place our state first over Liberal & Labor Party objectives. It might only be an appearance of self determination but it'd be a damn good start.

The Adler Matter in the Senate

Yes the Adler Shotgun issue rolls on & it's very bizarre. To the point where the actual gun will be overshadowed by other issues including the actual ban having done more to promote & sell the firearm than anything else.

Last night the issue was voted on, to drop the ban, with several Nationals MPs crossing the floor to vote with Senator David Leyonhjelm. In short it was defeated and the Import Ban remains in place. The promised sunset clause has been reneged upon, the ban remains in place.

So the status quo remains, the status quo is this. Currently...

1. It is possible to legally buy, own, possess and use a 5 shot lever action shotgun in Australia.
2. There's now a growing number of similar firearms available to choose from. Made by Emerald, IAC, Pardus, Winchester and several others. All 5 shot lever action unless they were 6 or 8 shot and been around for a decade or more.
3. The Import of the 7 shot Adler (and any other brand) is impossible. The temporary ban remains in place until the states agree on its classification. They've been legal and available since, well since ever, that remains, its just that now only a 5 shot can be imported.
4. It is perfectly legal to buy a 5 shot Adler (or other brand) and legally buy a magazine extension that turns it into a legal 7 or 10 round Shotgun.
5. The Ban, the ongoing angst over it has heightened sales greater than any advertising ever could. The local gun shop here has 7 sold ones on the shelf awaiting collection and the man behind the counter said "We can't get them in quick enough, we get them in and they're sold"

The fact also remains that there's been no recorded use of a lever action shotgun being used in a crime or mass shooting. The Lindt Café shooting involved a shotgun, but it was an illegal sawn off pump action, bought on the black market by a person who did not and never has possessed a firearms permit.

Outcome -

Its logic is stalled, its a political football that is being maintained in a bizarre circling pattern.

If there is indeed a threat to the public from this firearm, the hazard has increased through heightened sales and legal modifications. To date, nothing.

Politically its achieved the exact opposite of what it was meant to achieve. Its sold far more of the "Perfectly OK, safe & approved 5 shot". Many of which are being legally converted to 7 or 10 shot magazines. Which are the somehow unsafe and a heightened threat.

And all the while one other factor gets missed...this is a blatant act of Sovereign Over Reach by the federal government into State legislation. The Federal Government could not ban this fire arm, it could only ban its import. The states couldn't agree, status quo remains.

And still I cannot get anyone from the Government, any government to say WHY it requires banning, why 5 is ok but 7 shot isn't.

It still remains that there are 4 broad types of firearms.

1. Single shot - One cartridge goes into it, its fired, you open the breach, remove the spent cartridge, put in another, take aim and fire again. Muskets also fall into this area
   
2. Repeaters - These have a magazine that holds additional round. Bolt action, straight pull, pump action and lever actions fall into this grouping. Repeaters actually repeat. Still need manual loading of a single round, manual firing, manual ejection, manual reloading, manual firing. When the lever action first appeared over 150 years ago, what was it called? "Lever action repeater"
   
3. Semi Automatic - Still needs a pull of the trigger. Each pull only fires ONE round. The recoil and/or gas ejects the spent load & reloads the next round for you, but you still have to pull the trigger for each bullet. In fact you have to release the trigger and actually pull it again to fire subsequent rounds.
   
4. Fully Automatic - These are "machine guns" or "sub machine guns". If there's a group that is truly encapsulated by the bogus term "assault rifle" this is it. It ejects & reloads same as a semi automatic, but in this case it can fire as long as the trigger is held on. It can fire faster bursts. It was effective in battle to a point, but turns to stink because a soldier runs out of ammunition very quickly, most of it is wasted and it heats up the barrel and action. To be fair you would & should include "SELECT FIRE" firearms in this group. These are the semi automatics that have a switch that allows you to select from semi auto to full auto.

Its turned into a fight without reasoning, its turned into an embarrassing stuff up by Tony Abbott's government, latched onto by many MPs with no idea what's right or wrong nor why. Are they thinking they're placating irate voters? It will continue to simmer. The problem still exists, its been made worse by the import ban yet the problem unsurprisingly hasn't created any increased threat at all.

Bizarre to the point of embarrassing to watch.

Net outcome is, if it lasts any longer and gets any bigger, the people keen on dumping the Political Duopoly ala Trump style will probably grow and they'll head for the minor parties

The Nationals, Shooters Fishers & Farmers Party & One Nation will gather traction on this and several other 2nd & 3rd Tier Issues. One Nation less so in WA as the possible negative "Rodney Culleton Effect" increases.

SFFP are gathering steam & traction but so too are Nats WA with their fight for GST fairness and the Lease Rental Fee. SFFP are unlikely to run Lower House candidates so the battleground will be the rural & regional Upper House seats.

So many people with far more experience in political matters have gotten things wrong in this last 12 months so my thinking could easily be Seriously wrong.

Pretty sure though, your vote is now worth far more than ever, don't waste it and don't waste the opportunity to discuss it with family & friends.

Seriously Think About Your Vote

Politics, Political & Politicians

Politics - When 2 or more people gather to discuss the best course of action for the majority

Political - An issue or topic requiring 2 or more people to come together & discuss what is the best course of action for the majority

Too Political - When the group you're in is discussing the best course of action for the majority but it results in the group not letting you get your way but allows the majority to decide.

When ever someone says "Oh it all got political" I grin because if 2 people chat, its already political, by the very nature of humans having an opinion of their own, albeit swayed and influenced by others.

The downside for me is if a society is very politically disengaged things can go bump in the electoral night. In the case of Trump its being dissected flat strap in a political autopsy that could run for decades but everyone's trying to find reasons. Most of the people looking got the prediction wrong so I hope they're learning as they travel along. I can't help feel that voluntary voting has a bit to do with it.

It is after all a numbers game. You get the most numbers you win. Did Trump plug into the receptors of "real America", or the disenchanted, the disillusioned, the whoever dislikes Hillary or the establishment? Yes probably but the Hillary camp, way to late realised every vote would count and told people to go out and vote. A lot of people don't and how many people voted this time who don't usually I don't know but it was the most polarising election I've seen.

Most nasty and to be honest it had 2 candidates that might be quite good in their own way, but they couldn't be the best the country has to offer surely to goodness. Is it just a matter of the best of the ruthless and cunning get to the top of their respective pre-selections, or the richest? Who knows, some of these things but we've seen past candidates lose who were better than both of these candidates.

Australia has a different measure at play in that voting is compulsory. Or rather attendance is. There's more than a few people who have never registered to vote and therefore never have but for the most part, most people of the required age do vote. Unconfirmed but I was told its compulsory attendance for registered voters, not compulsory voting for everyone. It seems that way, you only have to attend a poling booth, get your name ticked off and put your ballot paper in the box... you can draw pictures on it or leave it blank if you want to.

At one polling station at the 2016 Federal Election I saw a man walk in, get ticked off the roll, take his voting slips straight to the ballot box, bypassing the booth and put them straight in the box. His hand never touched a pencil. A definite invalid vote. He didn't break the law. A lot of very stupid things aren't illegal of course and unsure as to what he was hoping to achieve.

In a perfect world, everyone in society would join a political party and have a part in the processes of politics, even if its attending one meeting a year or 3 years but generally people join parties out of a sense of duty or a perceived call to arms so to speak.

Where people get churned up and spat out is when its never explained to them that the greatest rigour and "argy-bargy" of a politic sense is not in Parliament House, nr the Senate, or the party room or cabinet.

Its within the political party's organisation. It gets very political and factionalised or very narcissistic and self serving at time. If this was explained to people perhaps many wouldn't walk away thinking its stacked, packed or factionally tilted. It is politics working and it's difficult for all of us to reconcile that 90% of a party's stances are aligned with our view but one or two things are patently wrong in our mind yet we have to go with the flow & support the majority.

Indeed it gets worse for politicians who may have a deep moral conviction on an issue but they have to sell and opposing view which is the party position. Its not uncommon for party hack MPs to tell independent MPs that they're sorry they can't support them & they would if they could. That sort of secret confessional admission more common than you think. I often wonder what would happen if all MPs hit a Yes, No or Abstain button and no one can see which way they're voting.

Thing is, there's always the duty to the electorate so at some point we still do need to see how a member voted. Or do we?

I think the reason people like to see religion and politics as taboo subjects socially is they could force us to think and confront our own prejudices. It could cause us to see if we're wrong and make a concession to others views that are actually right. for some, its very confronting to have a view questioned, more so when its pre-suppositional and has no research or thought behind it, just knee jerk bias. It forces us to confront ourselves when confronting others.

Why is that so challenging. reminded how some people are so focused on their worldview, which they don't understand but prefer to another more dominant one they understand even less.

That's fine with sports teams, but religion and politics don't need blind followers or blind objectors who object to rational discussion. That sort of politics should be heralded as higher thinking but it can go missing in the front bar and the party room.

It is what it is...but it shouldn't be feared and if its process oriented it can always be improved, never perfected mind you but improved. If its not being improved its being manipulated so the more sulight you shine on it, the safer we'll all be.

Seems to me more people, if they really care, should join a party and those who don't shouldn't complain too loudly without proper rational reasoning. Politics is ok it seems, but its never perfect.

Why "Blood Nose Politics" Resonates So Soundly.

Brendon Grylls is not trying to introduce a new tax at all. Whilst the media refer to it as a "mining tax" the plan is actually the update of a state agreement and comes from the Nationals WA State Conference in Kalgoorlie last year. It was a good motion and set the Nationals on a path to bringing some outdated levels of payment, circa mid 1960s up to 2016 levels.

Yes its a pity we got to the point where this had to be improved. Yes we could have learnt a lot from Norway about managing the income from a mining boom. Regardless it is what it is and the plans start now at their point & place we're in. What it teaches us, some of what it teaches us, is we need to monitor both sides of the ledger. To forward drought proof the plan with both sides of the ledger working for us. Yes a sovereign wealth fund would be great, but we're years too late for that now, that will be something for the emergence stage of the next boom...whenever it is.

Now we have to look at both sides of the ledger and reduce spending where we can, curve borrowing where we can, make every dollar count. The important part to remember is its managing O.P.M. - OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.

If an income stream is still lagging and pegged to 1960s prices it begs the question why? Next questions is about changing & updating it to a fairer level and that question is why the hell not?

Whether the eastern states will get more income out of it is a mute point when you consider WA will. WA certainly won't get anything if the status quo from when the Beatles were in their early 20s is maintained. I'd rather WA got a small extra fair shot in the arm than mining companies export extra profits paid for by the state of WA.

Its brought forward the term of "blood nose politics", certainly not coined by Brendon Grylls but certainly being used now and its resonating widely for pretty obvious reasons. It means different things to different people but most widely it's meaning not backing down and not giving up on a principal.

Blood nose politics is really what is needed regardless of your political leaning. We need relentless rigour applied to all ideas and much less reliance on compliance to party decrees. In other spheres we'd call it free thinking.

Brendon Grylls is not Edward De Bono, he is a political leader and a political player but the true sense of Blood Nose Politics is on his menu and he plans to serve it up regularly.

Blood nose politics is overdue and whilst some who support it might be critical of it's absence for so long at least the Nationals are the first to place it on the agenda. They're also got history with wanting the back packer tax abolished, GST share for WA made fairer and now bringing a state agreement, a mining lease rental fee up to 2016 standards away from the peppercorn rent of the 1960s.

Whatever the composition of the WA Parliament is post March election, I hope the Blood Nose Politics approach is alive and rigor will bring back some thoroughness and professionalism to decision making we've seen rare in past issues.

Dark times, but there's still good torches of light.

To check for rigour, see if whoever you're listening to is calling it a "mining tax" or "iron ore tax" or actually it what it actually is. A Lease Rental Fee. 

WA's Firearms Regulation Oddities

Yes these are pretty odd, worse still is they're no secret, they're widely known and complaints about them have been loud and lingering now for many years with no corrections. Some have turned into political footballs, well one has, but common sense and facts evade many of the federal MPs over it. Yes its a state based regulation not Federal, but the Sovereign Over Reach by the federal Liberal Government made it a federal football.

1. Station Owners/Pastoralists in WA can apply for a side arm, or pistol as a tool (and largely a safety device) of their every day work. A large and even medium calibre pistol can be a life saver with rogue animals at close quarters. Seems logical and sensible so far. It is.
   
   It is until that pastoralist decides he or she would like to compete at a pistol club. Only have to go minimum 6 times a year, but the upside is, they pick up skills of handling, maintaining and firing the firearm in a good social environment. Meeting more people and mixing with others is always a good thing for people who live in remote locations especially when safety and adhering to the law is the priority.
   
   Where it gets nonsensical is the pastoralist cannot take and use his/her sidearm off the station, it cannot be used at the range. They have to actually apply for another firearm, identical perhaps to compete. If their station firearm is damaged, even then they cannot use the range approved side arm on the station, its only at approved pistol club ranges & events.
2. Co-Ownership. If you have a husband & wife situation or parents & offspring, they cannot share a gun safe. Both people have to co-own all firearms in the safe or have separate safes. If you have a visitor from a northern station owner stay with you and you're both competing the next day it gets funny again. The pastoralist is required to keep their gun secure at all times, but strangely they technically can't put their firearm in your safe. Even a non gun owning wife cannot have the keys to her husband's gun safe. There has been a problem already where police checked a gun safe, the husband was away and the well meaning wife got the safe keys and unlocked for the police officers to check its mounting nuts, washers & bolts. She had no gun licence, the guns were seized.
3. Appearance Clause - In some cases, there are firearms that are prohibited with good reason. Others get you wondering. Cat D which are primarily self loading centrefire rifles & pump action shot guns that hold more than 5 rounds are completely prohibited. Go to Firearms Regulations 1974, look up Scehedule 3 & find the listing for Category D firearms.
   "A self loading centrefire rifle designed or adapted for military purposes or a firearm that substantially duplicates such a firearm in design, function or appearance"So based solely on appearance, firearms have been knocked back, that is declared as being military like in appearance and have been seized or denied permission to own.
   Step further, some farmers can get a Ruger 10/22 which is a .22 calibre semi automatic rifle. In factory trim with normal every day wooden stock fitted, no worries at all. Now once you own it and you decide to make it safer and easier to handle you replace the stock with a lawfully bought after market stock you need to be careful. Some of the after market ones have a pistol grip. You have just rendered your rifle a "prohibited firearm", you're now breaking the law and getting caught with it you'll be in big trouble, have your firearms seized and probably not be able to own a firearm again. Strangely, if there's a section that connects the bottom of the pistol grip to the end of the stock, its no longer a pistol grip, its a "thumbhole" stock and quite legal. If it has a shroud over the barrel or magazine its prohibited even if the shroud is for mounting accessories like a scope or a torch. It gets worse, there is no objective standard for the police to go by, so its their discretion. If they think its scary & army looking, its getting seized, you're probably getting charged and you'll have to go and have your day in court to maintain your unblemished firearms licence.
4. Semi Automatic Centrefire. Legal in Queensland with an Ag Permit for the purposes of destroying vermin/ferals. In fact there's a couple of firms that operate in Qld that control pigs etc from a helicopter using semi autos. All good. Some WA Pastoralists sought these contractors to control vermin numbers, Ag Dept approved then the paperwork got to the WA Police who then declared if the contractors crossed the WA Border their firearms would be seized and they would be charged. All Cat D firearms are banned in WA unless its for military or police use. One of the better centrefire rifles is the Mini 14 Ruger Ranch Rifle. A good sturdy .223 semi auto rifle. Great for good follow up shots at ferals. Its banned. Its basically the big brother of the Ruger 10/22. Duplicates it in function & appearance. In Queensland a primary producer just has to apply for a Ag Permit and its 100% legal.
5. Lever Action Shotgun - Currently 100% legal in WA. They were first produced by Winchester 129 years ago. They can legally be imported as long as they have a maximum magazine capacity or 5 rounds. Ironically though, they're still Cat A in WA so you can go by one and extend the magazine legally to 7 rounds which is currently only banned from importation not ownership. Many 7+ round lever actions were here prior to the "Adler". Its a very bizarre political football that's being booted all over the place and after 12+months, common sense is having little success at creeping into the debate which appears completely closed off to the public. The actual threat of 7 rounds over 5 has never actually been set out in the sunlight for proper inspection and testing. Most of the fight to keep 7 rounds comes from shooters who are up for the fight to maintain the status quo on a firearm most won't buy. They're looking to combat their rights that are under threat from a ban with no defendable cause. Serious strange set up.
   Funny thing about the Adler, or any lever action shotgun, never ever been used in a mass shooting and no records of one being used in a gun crime to date. If a criminal were to cut it down into a sawn off shotgun, because of the tube magazine it becomes a single shot. Probably why its only used by hunters who "brush hunt" or hunt on foot.
6. Not so much another oddity but a statement that people should read, learn, know & remember regarding lawful guns that end up in criminals hands.
   
   "Senator McKenzie said a senate inquiry report found that only four hundredths of one per cent of all registered guns in Australia were stolen and only five per cent of those were used to commit a crime.
   Further, recreational shooting contributes $1 billion to the national economy not including the many social and environmental benefits."

The Adler _ What the Judge Roy Bean?

Judge Roy Bean was an eccentric US saloon keeper & law man who died in 1903. His name was used for decades in the phrase "What the Judge Roy Bean?" as an exclamation instead of using the words "What the hell?"

In his lifetime many new things came along, new railroads, automobiles and all manner of innovations.
Why in the year he died Harley Davidson began with Cadillac the year before

Also in 1903...
Edward Binney and Harold Smith co-invent crayons.

Bottle-making machinery invented by Michael J. Owens.

The Wright brothers invent the first gas motored and manned airplane.

Mary Anderson invents windshield wipers.

William Coolidge invents ductile tungsten used in lightbulbs

But the lever action rifle was pretty old by the time Judge Bean left this world. In fact the first ever lever action is thought to be Colt's 1st & 2nd Model Ring Lever rifles. Both were cap & ball rifles produced by Patent Arms Mfg. Co. in New Jersey between 1837 and 1841.

 

The first truly successful lever action 12 Gauge shotgun was the Winchester Model 1887 which had been around 16 years when Judge Bean died. So the earliest 12 gauge lever action shot gun is celebrating its 129th birthday this year. Lever Action Rifles are celebrating their 179th birthday this year.

 

IT IS THEREFORE NOT NEW TECHNOLOGY.

 

Its not rapid fire, all firearms fire only as rapid as the operator can fire and even then there are limitations. Some firearms cannot fire as fast as others, some operators cannot fire fast as others and some can't hit a barn door with their first shot let alone the less accurate follow up shots. You can access the Youtube video where 2 experienced shooters fired 10 rounds. One used an old style double barrel shot gun, the other a 5 shot Adler lever action. They claimed the double barrel won, maybe but for sure, there was pretty well nothing in it. Trouble is, you don't have a desk top with the 10 rounds sitting there when you're hunting pigs in the brush, on foot.
Aside from that lever action rifles (and shotguns), pump action rifles (and shotguns) and bolt action rifles are "repeaters". If the Adler is "Rapid Fire" then so is every firearm except single shot firearms and double barrel shotguns. Fact is the only "Rapid Fire" type firearm are sub-machine guns & full machine guns.

 

IT THEREFORE CAN'T BE CLASSIFIED AS RAPID FIRE.

Its never been involved in a mass shooting. NEVER. No cited recordings of a lever action being used in gun crime. They're not the most reliable gun, lots of moving parts, they didn't take long before they were superseded by pump action shot guns and semi automatics. They have been around for ages, but not been very popular at all in recent times. You cannot easily fire them in the prone position because the gun has to be raised to cycle the lever to eject the spent round and cycle in the next round. Or you have to roll onto one side & lever it. Or lift up if you're leaning on a roof of a ute spotlighting. They, like lever action rifles, come into their own as a "Scrub Gun" or "Brush Gun" where a hunter is on foot and is at close quarters with a pig or dog and several shots are needed.

 

IT IS THEREFORE UNABLE TO BE CALLED THE "WORLD'S MOST LETHAL SHOTGUN" AS ONE PRESS OUTLET FOOL PUT IT.

 

How did the Adler get so popular? Simple...simple and sad really.

Nioa is a very large importer of firearms and only sells wholesale. It helped designed the firearm for the Australian market because its very difficult for shooters in some states to get the pump action (invented in 1897) and semi auto shotgun (invented in 1898). There were 7+1 lever action shotguns already available & in circulation in Australia but they've earned their reputation as being less than reliable and prone to breaking parts that are hard to get. They had become almost a curio or oddity. Some of the brands that can have up to 10 round magazines are Winchester, Chiappa, Norinco, Emerald, IAC & others, although most are either 5 shot or 8 shot. So they're here, been here a long time & available under Cat A quite legally. Lever action shotguns weren't hugely popular, that is until the Adler showed up. To promote it Nioa did a Youtube video where they torture tested 2 slightly different Adler shotguns (different barrel lengths), both 7+1 firearms. How do you torture test them? By firing 5000 shots through both of them as quickly as possible. If they were going to fail, this would show where it would and how badly it would be.

They didn't fail.

 

The video then quickly went viral amongst shooters who quickly realised they could go pig hunting on foot without dogs and knives which is very dangerous. Its on foot in the bush (where a ute can't go) that this firearm, like any lever action, comes into its own as a hunting firearm. Except now there was a reliable 12 gauge to choose from. Some claim they're not that great and there other new brands in Australia now, like Pardus & others but the hype built fast. Adler orders started flooding in. All long before they'd hit full production past the first 2 they torture tested.

 

Then politics entered, the anti-gun lobby cranked up and Tony Abbott installed an Importation Ban,  due to still unknown fears about the firearm and supposedly because a shot gun was used in the Lindt Café siege. However, the Lindt Café siege had a gunman with no firearms licence and the firearm was an illegally modified pump action illegally bought on the black market not a lever action.

So now lawful gun owners can legally own & licence a 12 gauge 7+1 lever action shotgun (still can) they just cannot get a new one because although they're legal, they cannot be imported.

Yes its a bizarre situation where a licenced firearm owner can legally purchase a 5 shot Adler, then go straight around to the gun smith, get it converted to a 7 shot and not be breaking the law. Still under Cat A.
Tony Abbott's import ban was to stay in place until the states all agreed to re-classify it from the category that John Howard's firearms review put the 7 Shot Lever Action Shotgun in back in 1996.

And the advantage of the firearm is not a lot. In fact the huge groundswell of desire for a 7+1 may be mainly due to the threat of it being taken away. For me, if I were pig shooting a lever action rifle or shotgun is fine but then I'm not interested in hunting pigs. If I had a use for one & had a fondness for old western style firearms then maybe. Otherwise no, most of the ban hype actually increased desire and orders.

The ban, which had a sunset clause before Tony Abbott was dumped as PM, actually helped sell more Adlers than Nioa could have ever done with a normal advertising campaign. In fact when the political flares went up, Nioa removed their YouTube Videos straight away but sale orders continued to increase. Not so smart Mr Abbott/Turnbull.

They've been in the community since the late 1800s and never been used in a mass shooting, no not one. They are not the firearm of choice by criminals or terrorists. Short firearms are, but more on that in a minute. The Sydney police worker callously gun down outside a Sydney police station by a radicalised Muslim teenager, he used an illegal Glock semi automatic pistol. That kid also did not have a firearms licence, it came from the black market and its now said to have never been legally sold in Australia but rather it was sold in the USA and smuggled into Australia.
So what is the preferred firearm of the criminals? Hand guns or sawn off shotguns so they can be concealed when carrying. Thing is if you convert an Adler into a sawn off shot gun, it will be a single shot lever action because it has a tube magazine, once shortened, it doesn't work. You can cut the stock off, but it actually makes cycling the lever action more difficult. Criminals & terrorists won't choose a lever action. Its a hunting action these days, has been for well over 60 years.

Malcolm Turnbull, you are at some stage going to have address the cause of the issue and clamp down on the black market gun trade rather than ban guns that aren't new, nor related to crime?

Its been an embarrassing SOVEREIGN OVER REACH by the government and highlights their absence of knowledge on the subject & their reliance on emotional hype devoid of facts, figures or common sense.

And just what part have the media played in this glorious Python-esque cock up of gargantuan proportions? Well they were the first fooled, and they're still running with it.

Port Arthur gets mentioned and its worth remembering that gunman was a deranged psychopath who had trouble discerning reality from fantasy according to his prison mental health worker (a professor no less). He also had no car licence, no gun licence and bought all the illegal guns from the black market. Of his 3 firearms, none were lever action. He used a AR-15 & a L1A1. He did have a shotgun, didn't use it & it wasn't a lever action. 

 

You'd think John Howard would have poured $500 million into address the illegal gun trade, smugglers and serious mental health. Sadly no. There are more votes in fear campaigns, facts are not needed. Mr Howard was also protecting us all from Weapons of Mass Destruction when he sent our country to war in Iraq & turns out there were none there. Perhaps it would have been easier if Saddam's troops and hench men all used Lever Action Shotguns, but no they all used military automatic weapons.

One other point, the reason John Howard's 1996 review put lever actions shotguns in Cat A was pretty simple. You manually cycle a round into a chamber, you pull the trigger and it fire one shot & one shot only. Then you manually cycle the spent round out & manually cycle the next fresh round into the chamber. Its not automatic, its not semi automatic, its not rapid fire. The only firearms that are rapid fire are fully automatic firearms, which most people know as machine guns. Long as you hold the trigger in it keeps firing at a rapid rate. That's what rapid fire is, a full automatic firearm. They are 100% completely banned in Australia for civilian ownership.

Wake up, stop and think seriously for one minute.