there are *many* things to address here....
first off:Bryant is *innocent*....even the "60 Minutes" interview with his mum a few yrs back hinted @ same.....well...@ least AFA it could...i bet if you spoke to the interviewer, Charles Woolley (?), privately...he would confirm that...
secondly: Bryant's guilty plea was *invalid*....being given under duress and being given illegitimately because he was in the care of the Public Trustee @ the time.....
as such: a Coronial Inquest *and* re-trial is required.....
thirdly: Howard's gun-grab and the subsequent NFA were *both* illegal under Common Law, the Bill of Rights 1689 *and* violated the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914.....
all of the abv have been discussed *@ length* on the various Martin Bryant is Innocent FB`s ....
for those interested: i suggest a *careful and prolonged* perusal of the material @ those sites.....
because: ½-baked ad hominems that simply re-hash the main-stream media party-line *propaganda* will, AFAIMC, either be ignored or responded to with contempt!

thanking-y'all !!

Saltpetre, you have some valid points... however, you fail to understand some things. There are THREE necessities for a crime to be committed: means, opportunity, and intent. The gun is only one of many "means". If one has the other two in place, a clawhemmer will suffice for the means.. and, in fact, in the USA< more people are murdered annually by the carpenter's claw hammer than by ALL RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS COMBINED. As to limiting to bolt action, no issue... the Texas Tower Shooter of some years back used a bolt action hunting rifle. I have watched a friend using a Remington 700 in .308 place, in well under a minute, ten rounds in a six inch pettern at 25 m, offhand, hand loading each round in turn, not using the magwell. In prone I watched him place ten rounds, again single shot, into four separate targets max error from centre of 5 mm. I also watched this same man place five rounds, from prone, into a three quarter inch )20mm) square at two hundred metres. A bolt gun is no deterrent. From 200 M a man with evil intent could kill a dozen or more before anyone could work out where the shooter was. What is lacking in Australia is the intent. What is the issue here in the USA is intent. And the media, and special interests, foment the anti-gun meme, same as they do in Australia. They desparately want us completely disarmed. Until then they fear we the people.

There is a fundamental flaw in the blinkered reasoning of those who support Australia's strict gun laws. That is, if the easy availability of firearms are the primary cause of spiralling rates of criminal behaviour involving firearms (including massacres), then why did they not happen during that period of Australia's history when our firearm laws were very lenient?

Firearms could be purchased (or even rented!) from department stores and suburban male hairdressers. Ammunition could be obtained from country petrol stations and corner stores. Licences did not exist. Boys aged 16 could purchase firearms with their parents permission. School cadets could be seen walking to school or sitting on the bus carrying military rifles, and nobody batted an eyelid.

Pump action shotguns and self loading rifles had been present in Australia since the late 1800's. And people with emotional problems and very low IQ's had been around a lot longer than that. But they had never before got it into their stupid heads to pick up an easily available gun of any sort and start mowing people down in restaurants, schools, or shopping centres.

If something in your society is changing for the worse, then any intelligent person would consider it is pertinent to look at those aspects of society which have changed for the explanation. Not concentrate your ire on a factor which was always present and was never a factor in the past. I submit that Australian society has changed in three different ways.

First, the incidences of massacre behaviour exploded into western consciousness after the social changes experienced during the sixties. One important factor in massacre behaviour was the almost complete removal of censorship from the entertainment media. Prior to the sixties, governments everywhere had simply taken it for granted that movies extolling the virtues of violent criminal behaviour, drug abuse, massacres (in the revenge movie Death Wish III, Charles Bronson shoots dead 35 people, the same as Martin Bryant shot dead at Port Arthur) and revenge, would ultimately reflect in rising rates of violent criminal behaviour, and movies glorifying such behaviour were banned.

To be continued

continued.

But the rising tide of liberalism in the west saw the removal of most entertainment industry censorship, with only children protected through movie classifications.

Those that claim that the images portrayed and the messages transmitted on the media have no effect on human behaviour, should stop and listen real hard. They will hear the advertising executive at MOJO and Saatchi & Saatchi laughing their heads off. And if the media has no effect on behaviour, perhaps we should allow tobacco and alcohol advertisements in children's comics?

Today, one third of families are "single parent households" where the father is usually the one missing. Adolescent psychologists are adamant that "latch key children" from such families are usually poorly socialised and particularly prone to adopting the anti social messages bombarding them in the media, that selfishness, violence, criminality and drug abuse are "cool" behaviour.

Lastly, the racial demographics of Australia are changing before our eyes. And you would have to be one of the three monkeys if you could not make the connection between certain violent ethnicities and our ever rising rates of serious gun crime. In 2001, NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics published a report noting that 55% of the handgun shootings in the entire state of NSW occurred within the boundaries of two notorious ethnic ghettoes in Sydney.

jim/said/quote..<<..there are *many* things to address here....
first off:Bryant is *innocent*....>>

I HAVE HEARD/THAT THE FIRING ANGLES INDICATE..up to 3 shooters
also that the dude was encouraged.if not set up..clearly the gun comming from the 'buybacK'[IE POLICE CUSTODY..INDICATES..curious factoids/but guilty pleas cannot be appealed.

<<secondly: Bryant's guilty plea was *invalid*....being given under duress>>
to be frank..near all evidence police 'procure'..is under juress
that SORT OF comes with the 'job'[besides the guilty plea cant appeal.

<<..and being given illegitimately..because he was in the care of the Public Trustee @ the time.....>>

A TRUSTEE/NEEDS DELIVER A DUTY OF CARE..that is true
and they..usually must be present[if the defendant notified..them]
the point being.they cant speak for him[only advice against self-incrimination..a[the biggest factor.lamost as bad as allowing/signed confession]..it couLd make an appeal point/and must have been trIED..[BUT MOST LIKELY THE COURT WOULD REFUSE TO HEAR IT]

<<>.as such: a Coronial Inquest *and* re-trial is required.....>>

CERTAINLY IN LIGHT OF THE DINGO TOOK MY BABBY/AND..OTHER FACTOIDS[like children over board]..indicate it shoulf be investigated[i thought it was/i recall the extra shooters theory came from some investiogation/or other..a retrial is a missnomer[no real trial was held/guilty means the judge gets the facts/only as seen in the light of we know who done it[now what was done that he has plead guilt to.[its their system;its designed to do exactly as was done.

but if i was set up i would be blogging long and hard
yop get the facts in the file revieuwed[freedom of info/looked over by soime experts maybe presenting the proofs online/but\..RECORDED..fact is guilty.

and..[the law stops there]

<<>>thirdly: Howard's gun-grab and the subsequent NFA were *both* illegal under Common Law,>>

yes sure/but govt made 'the common law'..into act
and by the acts/any who fall under the act/are made subject/under\the act[like the act that 'sections'/people mentaly incompitant/RE HIS TRUSTEE/GUARDIAN

<<. the Bill of Rights 1689 *and* violated
the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914.....>>

PUTTING THE DETAUIIL out there/for discussion/helps
anyhow the bill of rights/they will claim..isnt a right..[rights have become duty].the act that gives can be taken away/i used the magna carta/but higher rulings have denied/them standing.

standing is all important/key.really..we have two forms of law[civil or copntract law[including handshake/or word of mouth contract[like confession]..then we have criminal law..where the court is there to repair damages/by court order/but the whole justice system has been overturned

marc macmurty..knows much about these matters
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=marc+macmurty+youtube

<<..>>because: ½-baked ad hominems that simply re-hash the main-stream media party-line *propaganda* will, AFAIMC, either be ignored or responded to with contempt!>>

SUPREEM POWER CORRUPTS ABsolutly
bryant fits the patcy prophiLE..BUT PEOPLE STILl insist they can plea*..to oppressors/AND THE OPPRESSION GOES away..but life dont work/that way..

my one consistant consolation..is god knows what really happend
and he is the only one who matters..unless you include the ombudsman..[properly doing his duty]