Police State and Gun Control
A police state is a government that exercises power through the power of the police force. Originally, a police state was a state regulated by a civil administration, but since the beginning of the 20th century it has “taken on an emotional and derogatory meaning” by describing an undesirable state of living characterized by the overbearing presence of civil authorities. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state )
So, if the head of a nation doesn’t like the way things are going he can just say fuck democracy this is the way I want it done and then he/she transitions to dictator, and will start putting out their own rules and target who they want via ethnicity, religion, if they are pro-gun etc.
The image of a police state can be seen in films such as 1984, The Hunger Games and even Star Wars, but what exactly do people mean when they say police state. The key things that pop up are constant surveillance, where even if there was a sudden vibe of something illegal or just something unethical going to happen, you will be targeted and approached by these ‘police’, which ideally takes the direct orders from the dictator/leader.
Some say that China is currently in a police state due to their orders from the fearless leader Xi Jing Ping. With all the surveillance in the country and social credit scores it is hard to not get it past what is happening.
As we know here in Australia, we have a fairly strict gun control rule compared to the rest of the world due to the events that happened in Port Arthur in 1996, which triggered a government buyback where they seized almost one third of the country’s guns. The only other countries that are on par with the level of control with Australia are China, Japan, Canada and the UK.
Many other countries have restrictions on what extent you can carry a gun, but the only two countries that do not require such rules or permits are the USA and Yemen. In the US the second amendment state “You have the right to keep and bear arms”. But if this amendment is to be repealed, it would be easier to control the people as it would be harder for them to defend themselves. Joe Biden has been very vocal about this such tactic as it may seem to be the guy to finally collapse the second amendment.
To change the constitution is something that will not happen overnight. There will be a few steps to get to this stage via senate and congressional hearings, however what we do know is that if guns are going to be removed in America it will cause an uproar like no other which will cause clashes in states into a civil war like situation. In order for this plan to succeed there will be an epic false flag event which will be so overblown that will be the nail in the coffin for the second amendment, or Joe Biden just does what Joe Biden wants and see ya later buddy, off to the furnace dirty harry.
You can see small signs of this happening as Letita James of New York has put in a lawsuit against the National Riffle Association to dissolve the group. Now, the NRA is country’s biggest protector of gun rights and the second amendment, by this even getting considered is a big move and where else to strike, in one of the bluest states of the United States, New York New York.
You probably believe that Martin Bryant, acting alone, carried out the Port Arthur massacre on Sunday 28th April 1996. If so, can you reconcile the following facts with the official story?
1. On the Sunday morning, two hours before the murders, ten of the senior managers of Port Arthur were taken to safety many miles away up the east coast,for a two day seminar with a vague agenda and no visiting speakers. Was the timing of this trip a mere coincidence?
2. Also just before the shootings the only two policemen in the region were called away on a wild goose chase. They were sent to the Coal Mine at Salt Water River, to investigate a heroin drug stash which turned out to be soap powder. This was too far for them to get to the Broad Arrow Cafe in time to be of any use. Had a policeman remained at Dunalley he would have closed the swing bridge to prevent the killer(s) from escaping from the peninsula. Did Bryant, IQ 66, organise this decoy?
3. Big Mortuary Truck. Before the massacre, a specially-built 22 person capacity mortuary truck was built. It attracted some derision at the time, but its effective use at Port Arthur was unquestioned. After the massacre it was advertised, unsuccessfully, for sale via the internet, then converted for another purpose. Without the foresight of Port Arthur, why build it? When it had proven its worth, why get rid of it? Another coincidence?
4. Martin Bryant has never been properly identified as the gunman. A young woman who ate her lunch near the gunman just before 1.30 said he had a freckled face. Graham Collyer, the wounded ex-soldier, who had the best opportunity to observe the killer, said he had a pock-marked or acned face. Neither description fits Bryant who has a beautifully smooth complexion. Graham Collyer says that it was not Bryant who shot him in the neck.
5. Illegal Photo. On 30th April the Hobart Mercury printed an old photo of Martin Bryant on the front page. This was illegal because at that stage some of the witnesses had not yet been asked to identify the killer, and the photo would have become fixed in the minds of the witnesses. When one witness was asked to describe the clothing worn by the gunman, she described the clothing on the old photo instead of what the gunman had worn. The Mercury newspaper was not prosecuted for breaking the law.
6. Mrs Wendy Scurr, nurse, tour guide and Ambulance Officer, rang the police at 1.32 pm to report the shooting. She and other medics then cared for the injured and the dead without any police protection for six and a half hours. Who ordered the armed police to stop at Tarana, where they had a barbecue? The police who arrived by boats were a stone’s throw away from the main crime scene, the cafe, and they too failed to come in to see what was going on. Was this meant to increase the trauma of the survivors?
7. Three more shots were fired at Port Arthur at 6.30pm while Bryant was at Seascape. Who fired those shots?
8. Same Question – Different Answer. At a recent Forensics Seminar in Queensland where the Tasmanian Police forensic gun inspector, Gerard Dutton, gave a lecture, the first question came from Mr Ian McNiven. He asked if there was any empirical evidence to link Martin Bryant to the Broad Arrow Cafe. Sargent Dutton immediately closed the 15 minute question time and would not reply. When McNiven managed to say “I have here Graham Collyer’s police statement…”, Sgt Dutton threatened him with arrest and called for security agents to escort McNiven out of the building.
When Dutton was asked the same question in America by a Doctor at a seminar, he replied truthfully – “There is no empirical evidence to link Bryant to the cafe.”
9. Yet a police video tape exists which proves that the police had an excellent opportunity to get DNA samples and finger prints of the gunman. The video briefly shows the blue sports bag on a cafe table. The gunman had carried his 3 rifles in this bag and left it right next to his drinking glass, his Solo soft drink can, knife, fork, plate, video cameras, etc. Why did the police fail to take DNA samples and finger prints?
10. According to the official story, Bryant first killed David and Sally Martin at Seascape Cottage in the morning, then went on to Port Arthur. Yet two policemen have reported seeing a naked woman with black hair, screaming and running from one building to another at Seascape well into the afternoon. If Sally Martin was dead, who was this woman?
11. Proof of other gunmen in Seascape Cottage. While Bryant was calmly talking to police by telephone in the cottage during the ‘siege’ and the conversation was recorded, someone else fired an SKK rifle 20 times. In the transcript the gunfire is recorded as ‘coughs’ but an electronic analysis of one of the ‘coughs’ shows that it was an SKK shot.
12. Two More Very Handy Seminars. On the Sunday morning, some 25 specialist doctors (Royal Australian College of Surgeons) from all over Australia had attended a training course in Hobart, and their last lecture was on Terrorist Attack and Gunshot Wounds. They stayed on to take care of the wounded victims.
13. Also, more than 700 reporters from 17 nations came to a seminar in Hobart. They were asked to arrive during the week-end as the seminar was due to begin early on Monday morning. How handy to have 700 scribblers churning out their anti-gun and disarmament propaganda to the whole world!
14. “There will never be uniform Gun Laws in Australia until we see a massacre somewhere in Tasmania” said Barry Unsworth, NSW Premier, December, 1987 at a conference in Hobart. Prophecy or Planning?
15. “If we don’t get it right this time (gun laws) next time there is a massacre, and there will be, then they’ll take all our guns off us”, said the deputy prime minister, Tim Fischer in May 1996. Who is the “THEY” who would order the removal of our guns? Did Fischer let slip that gun confiscation has been ordered by someone other than our own leaders?
Facebook is blocking all news in Australia to send a message, this is happening because Zuckerburg isn’t happy with a proposed legislation in Australia called the news media bargaining code. It requires Facebook to pay news publishers for news content Australians see in their feed. This basically means that FB/Google depend on the local news to provide them with content, so share some of the ad revenue with the content creators.
These greedy cunts don’t want to fork over some of the ad revenue so like a prepubescent child they decided to throw a hissy fit and just block whatever they deem as “Australian News content” from appearing on their platform. As you can imagine this caused a massive mess as it also blocked some crucial government pages.
Other governments around the world are looking closely at this situation as they want to implement a similar change in their nations.
FB/Google are arguing that they are driving traffic to these news sources and instead they should be getting paid for their service.
Google threatened to pull their service from Australia but once their bluff was called they started making deals with various news publishers like News Corp & Nine entertainment, the two biggest companies that were supporting this media bargaining code.
If the Australian media bill becomes law, Facebook and Google will have limited time to strike a deal with the news outlets and if they fail to do so the Australian government governs what a fair deal will be.