I have now got a furry pen pal from America. There’s no telling what these jumping genes might do! Here we have a conversation about gun control in America and Australia. My readers might be interested to recall the book: Thomasina, the Cat Who Thought She Was God, Thomasina is a 1957 novel by Paul Gallico about a cat, owned by a child whose strict father must learn that love is powerful enough to help others. Maybe truth is stranger than fiction?

Gibber! Gibber!

Chugley

Chugley and Pussington

Pussington’s owner explains:

You’re all familiar with Chugley, that loveable, politically incorrect Chimp who loves liberty while climbing and swinging around in some of Australia’s finest treetops, namely those of Taronga Zoo, Sydney, New South Wales.  Through an odd set of circumstances, Chugley became acquainted with an American cat, one Pussington, who happened to be in New South Wales on a visit with an American family.  This cat also has received a part human download from a jumping gene known as a transposon.

In conversation – we won’t go into all the details as to how it happened – they came to understand that they shared similar, sensible political views and e-mailing abilities.  Pussington was curious about the country he was visiting and had some questions for Chugley sent via e-mail.

Pussington:  

Why can’t people own guns in Australia unless you have a “genuine reason” for owning one, a reason which does not include self-defense?  Other than just sport, wouldn’t that be a primary reason for owning one?

Chugley:  

We’re told that humans can’t be trusted to not go out and shoot hundreds of their own kind. In fact there was a shooting in Tasmania at Port Arthur in 1996. A man with limited mental capacity, Martin Bryant, was blamed for the shooting of 35 people and wounding another 23. Bryant was never given a trial, the only person in Australia never to have been afforded one in such circumstances. Full details were suppressed, but it was felt by many that this was a “Psychological Operation” designed to disarm the Australian people, which it indeed did. A book was written by Joe Vialls who investigated the event. Joe concluded that these shootings were carried out by some mercenary military duo. This was widely ridiculed at the time and discussion shut down by the media. Sound familiar? This monkey is still not fully decided on the who, why what of this shocking event.

Pussington:  

That’s crazy!  What, are they suggesting that, say, one in ten owners would do that?  One in one hundred?  One in one million?  Ridiculous!  And what’s not “genuine” about wanting one for self-defense?

Chugley:

They tell us that any number killed is too many and, even if no one is killed, guns are still used in criminal actions.  Port Arthur was used to “prove” the point.

Pussington:  

I see…so Australian criminals, prior to committing a gun crime, must first get registered, and log the serial numbers of their weapons with your authorities?

Chugley:

I think that’s how it works.  You can’t say that you want to own one for self-defense, that’s not “genuine”. But it’s apparently okay if you plan to use one to commit a crime after falsifying the information for why you want to own one.

Pussington:  

Hmmm…these are deep waters…So what are the most popular reasons given for owning one?

Chugley:  

Well, committing of crimes other than wanton slaughter, is right up there…Shooting out street lights is popular also road signs, er…oh, and target/competition shooting of course, clay pigeons and all that.  A few people claim to need one for hunting the Abominable Snowman, Yeti, or Sasquatch as I think you Yanks call them……gives me the willies!  That thing might be a relative!  Shooting vermin on farms is a popular pastime too.  What about you guys over in the states?  Don’t you need permits?

Pussington:  

Maybe.  That depends on where you live as all the states are different.  My people live in the state of Arizona.  They don’t need a permit of any kind, unless the weapon is fully automatic.  They can conceal them on their person or wear/carry them openly – really, whatever they like.  Other states, like California, New York or Washington, DC where Adolf Hitler’s political offspring run things, require permits to own guns and also permits to carry them concealed on your person.  The U.S. Constitution says without ambivalence that our citizens have the right to bear arms, a right which cannot be abridged.  Personally, I think that “permits” are an abridgement.  

Chugley:  

But what about crime?

Pussington:  

My people say that because everyone is potentially armed, there is far less per capita crime in Arizona than most states.  They also say that “crime” per se – did I just use a Latin phrase, meow meow! – isn’t the reason that Hitler’s people wanted arms control and ultimately to ban them?

Chugley:  

I know some Latin too!  How about “Acta non verba”? (Deeds not words) Gibber Gibber! OK, what’s their reason?

Pussington:  

Wow!  “Deeds, not words”!  You’re amazing!  Where were we are…  My people say that the Hitler types want firearms banned in order to more easily assume absolute power over the population, and that that is the reason why the men who founded the United States included that provision in the constitution in order to prevent this sort of threat.  It was included so that an armed populace would be in a position to prevent any governmental group from obtaining, unconstitutional absolute power.

Get this: my cousin, Pussmore, tells me that his people say the same.  He says that they claim that the government is actually trying right now for that absolute power.  Hey…as long as the litter box is clean and the cat food keeps coming, y’know?

Chugley:  

Yeah, bananas and oranges forever!  Maybe we just better be quiet and don’t rock the boat, I don’t want to be banished back to my jungle in the Congo.

Pussington:

What’s up with Sasquatch hunting in Australia?

Chugley:  Ha ha… !  No one’s looking for Sasquatch in Australia!  It’s just an excuse, deemed by those ordained to deem such things, as a “genuine” reason to own a gun, so some people write it down, unable to think of another “genuine” reason other than “self-defense”.

Pussington:

If someone has a genuine reason to own a gun, does that mean that they’ll never go to the town park and kill off a few people just to have something to do on a boring day?

Chugley:  

I think to get registered they also have to look at a lot of ink blots and tell the high priest what you see.  Then they throw their chicken bones, interpret them and match it to what you told them about the blots.  If it works out, you get the permit.  If it doesn’t, you are denied.  Maybe that’s not the exact procedure, but it makes about as much sense.

Pussington:

Mmmm….chicken bones… I ate a parakeet once.  I didn’t need a gun to get him, either.  I might have needed a gun when my people found out…but only for self-defense.  I spent at least three hours under a sofa following that meal!

Chugley:

All this about guns really doesn’t have anything to do with crime.  Lots of people are done in with hammers, knives, cars, poisons, beatings of one sort or another.  Before there were guns, plenty of people were murdered.  Armies butchered each other in the thousands without guns.

Pussington:  

Cousin Pussmore’s people said that it’s only about the government taking absolute power.

Chugley:

That makes sense.  Our new ban on “high power” guns that can pierce armor would support that.  Who has armor?  The government.  Why would anyone shoot at government armor?  Where is that happening?  It isn’t.  So, it makes sense that they are planning things which are so bad, so unacceptable and perhaps unthinkable, that it might induce a force of civilians to shoot at their armor.  To take out that possibility, disarmament is their prep work.  Then, only they will have guns and the people will just have to submit.  Am I bananas to think that??  Gibber gibber!

Pussington:

Well, we know it isn’t about crime.  So, it has to be about something else.  That’s the only something else which makes any sense.  What I can’t figure out is why so few of us seem to understand where this is going.

Chugley:  

Aw, that’s easy!  The newspapers and TV people are paid to make us believe the unbelievable.  Those on the telly are chosen for their ability to “connect” with the audience, using their intonations and facial expressions, along with their scripts, to make everyone believe them.  They’re paid to not figure it out and to not investigate.

Pussington:

I’ve heard that home in the USA the CIA sends a lot of nonsense stories to the media there.  What else do they do, anyway?

Chugley:  

I don’t know.  That’s over in your area.  Hey, Puss, here’s an idea…, what d’ye say we get down out of this tree and go find a member of parliament and tell him what we think about all this?

Pussington:  

Great!  But let’s make it quick.  I don’t want to miss supper.  But …  er, who’s going to drive?