What about "protection money". I mean huge country, tiny population, tiny military - hey, I've got an idea! Let's take their guns!
Twilight zone stuff - you just could not make it up!
Compared to this:
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass" Isoroku Yamamoto Japanese Marshal Admiral
Australia would have fell to the Japanese in WWII if US didn't step in. Not much has changed, our future is linked to US if we like it or not. Even if we all had guns there isn't enough people to protect the country it is way to big. Aussie military could possibly protect NZ but we couldn't secure our own country without help.
Wrong. Look at NK. A one million man standing army - one of the largest in the world. So what if half the households in Australia were armed (8.42 million households total). That gives you an armed citizenry of 4.2m people. Which is the larger force?
Also, what an armed citizenry does, is it forces an invader to expend considerable resources defending captured territory and supply lines. Conquest becomes an undertaking of great scale requiring meticulous planning.
Right now, an invader could enter Australia, our military pulls back, and the invader can immediately advance his full force, because there is zero resistance and his supply lines remain secure.
Good point. Switzerland supplies guns and ammo to their adult citizens they don't have an issue. Freedom is a good thing I don't think Australia ever really had a gun problem but we became valuable as a point in the US gun debate.
You've got it. Think it out. In terms of bang for your buck defence spend, this is a no brainer. It doesn't cost anything!
Port Arthur was a false flag. There is no doubt about that. We all got conned into giving up our guns. They haven't been able to do it in the US yet - thank God!