Around the turn of the 20th century, progressives laid out a plan to take over America. They knew they had several major obstacles that needed to be overcome and that it would take a slow gradual process about 100 years to accomplish the goal. One of the obstacles was Christianity. America was founded on Christian biblical principles, morals and values. A religious nation would not give up easily, unless that foundation was slowly eroded which has been done quite successfully.

A second major obstacle that needed to be overcome was the strong bonds of traditional families. The parental influence was very strong a century ago and most young people listened to what their parents said and taught. Today, divorce is rampant with many kids growing up in broken and fatherless homes. Schools are teaching kids to ignore their parental authority. Same-sex marriages helped to undermine the strong traditional family bonds.

The third and final obstacle was to disarm the American people. History has proven time and again that it’s very difficult to conquer a nation of armed citizens. In that effort, progressives have been working hard to disarm Americans. They have turned to the guise of needing stricter gun control to lower the amount of gun violence in the US. Then claim that the fewer guns that are in the hands of the people, the fewer gun related crimes will be committed.

However, history has also proven those arguments to be bogus and backwards. In fact, history has proven that disarming the people leads to higher crime rates. Law abiding citizens are left disarmed while criminals continue to obtain illegal guns and use them to victimized the disarmed citizens. Australia is a prime example.

In 1996 newly elected Prime Minister John Howard of Australia pushed for stricter gun control. That year the Australian Parliament passed the National Firearms Agreement which banned the private ownership of all semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic and pump action shotguns. The new law also established more restrictions in the licensing of other firearms.

According to the National Firearms Agreement private citizens were forced to turn over the banned weapons in a government buyback system. Beginning on October 1, 1966 through September 30, 1997, the Australian government spent $500 million in purchasing and destroying more than 631,000 banned guns. Howard and other politicians promised the citizens of Australia that they would be safer now that these horrible weapons had been taken off the streets.

However, that was not the case!

Since Australia banned semiautomatic rifles, shotguns and pump action shotguns the gun crime rates have skyrocketed throughout the country.

  • Murders committed with guns increased by 19%.
  • Home invasions increased by 21%.
  • Assaults committed with guns increased by 28%.
  • Armed robberies skyrocketed with an increase of 69%.

Many former gun owners blame the government and their gun control laws for the increases in crimes. They feel helpless in their own homes, unable to protect themselves. In fact, home invasions were so rare prior to the gun ban that the nation did not even have a legal definition for what a home invasion was.

One would think that lessons would be learned from what has happened in Australia, but progressives and liberals are so blinded by their agendas that they cannot see the facts before their eyes. As if things weren’t bad enough after Australia tried to disarm the people, they are making another attempt to complete their total confiscation of all firearms from the hands of law abiding citizens.

“In a tacit admission that criminals and scofflaws have had little trouble circumventing Australia’s National Firearms Agreement (NFA) and the government’s confiscation effort, Australian officials have set a date for another firearms amnesty program. The program is set to begin in July and last for three months. Despite offering no compensation for surrendered firearms, government officials hope that the plan will net 260,000 of an estimated 600,000 illegally possessed guns…”

“‘To coincide with the new restrictions, the government provided a firearms amnesty and compensation program. Through a massive public education campaign, gun owners were warned that they were required to turn their newly-prohibited firearms over to the government for a set price. Incorrectly called a ‘buy-back’ by some U.S. politicians, as the NFA did not grandfather the possession of firearms owned prior to the new restrictions, the ban and amnesty amounted to gun confiscation.”

“In announcing the new federal amnesty program, Justice Minister Michael Keenan told the Sunday Mail, ‘This is the first Australia wide gun amnesty since 1996, when the Howard government took action following the devastation of the Port Arthur Massacre,’ but acknowledged, ‘there have been state-based amnesties over that time’…”

“In 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice reviewed the available research on Australia’s NFA firearm confiscation program and issued a memorandum that concluded that the effort had no effect on crime generally. In coming to this determination, the memorandum cited work from University of Maryland Professor Peter Reuter and Jenny Mouzos, aptly titled, ‘Australia: A Massive Buyback of Low-Risk Guns.’ The NIJ memo made clear that the researchers ‘found no effect on crime’.”

“Given that turn-in programs do not reduce crime, some might wonder why Australia would once again embark on such a pointless endeavor. However, Keenan was kind enough to provide the Sunday Mail with the government’s rationale, explaining, ‘This is as much about giving a family a chance to get rid of an old heirloom as it is about getting rid of guns off our streets’.”

“With refreshing candor, the Australian government has admitted that its intent with the new amnesty is to disarm the otherwise law-abiding who are not in total compliance with Australia’s onerous gun control regime. This pursuit of unregistered heirlooms and family keepsakes will no doubt have an effect on violent crime similar to that of previous amnesties; none.”

Once, again, history has supported the arguments made by so many 2nd Amendment and gun advocates. Banning guns does nothing to curb gun violence and in many cases, only serves to increase the amount of violence inflicted law abiding citizens.