The ownership of historic weapons in Australia is a political act.  In many respects, there are people desirous of making that a prohibited act.

     Australian Citizens do not have a Bill of Rights. Those rights given them by its parliaments, are just as easily taken from them by those parliaments,  by the administrative fiats of those appointed by their parliaments, and by  the predations of a powerful and paid bureaucracy who subscribe to their beliefs fortnightly,  through their pay packets.

     The anti-gun lobby is vociferous and successful beyond its numbers   because the noise it makes influences politicians who believe that peace and order is better served by reducing personal liberty, not encouraging it.    Those who collect guns, so long as they remain mute and polite, will never succeed in holding back the Nanny state.

     Gun owners in Australia must understand that Government employs its servants not to serve, but to connive the restriction and regulation of what were once understood as freedoms, one step at a time.  The ownership of historic weapons is but one of those former freedoms. Unless you exert a politic force of your own, what you have yesterday, you will not have tomorrow.

     The point of this lobby is that each and every arms collector should become politically active and join a political party, the better to exert such freedom as now remains to change the party's views upon the ownership and collection of arms.

     This site is conducted by DEAD CANARY, and the views herein are his own, and not those of the Arms Collectors Guild of Queensland, which has no opinions. Contrary opinions can be expressed at the Guild's Forum.





FALSE is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty... and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree.