> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://goodoil.news/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Control Muslims Instead of Guns - URL: https://goodoil.news/control-muslims-instead-of-guns/ - Published: 2026-08-21T04:00:55.000Z - Updated: 2026-08-21T04:00:54.000Z - Description: It’s all about keeping the community safe, after all. - Author: Lushington Brady - Tags: AUS Politics, Terrorism, Religion, Satire When the news of the Bondi antisemitic terror attack, perpetrated by Muslims, broke, the Albanese government’s immediate reactions were all-too telling. Notably, they strenuously resisted calls for a royal commission into antisemitism. They denied it was religiously motivated. They didn’t condemn radical Islam. They went for gun owners. That, in a country with already restrictive gun ownership laws. The idea was so obviously ridiculous that all but one Labor state government refused to have anything to do with it. But, as the *Australian*’s “The Mocker” ponders: imagine if the Albanese government not only openly acknowledge the Islamic motivation of the last two years of antisemitism, but treated Muslims the same way they do law-abiding gun owners. It’s a pretty tough ask for the imagination. Even imagining, just for a moment, that the prime minister discovered a sudden streak of spine and decided to regulate radical Muslims with the same remorseless enthusiasm he currently reserves for people who own a .22 for rabbits is such a monumental suspension of disbelief that most of us could sooner imagine National MPs actually believing in something. Albanese’s idea of decisive action is usually a focus group and a carefully worded equivalence. But play along. The first principle would be simple. Freedom of religion is one thing: Islam is another. Here, by the way, The Mocker fails his own test of bold thinking, by referring to “political Islam”. This is a common but fundamental misunderstanding of Islam: Islam is a total system, beyond a religion. Its scriptures not only make politics explicitly subordinate to religion, but lay out a complete set of political and legal prescriptions. Prescriptions that have shown, repeatedly and bloodily, that Islam holds Western law and secular democracy in open contempt. Left to grow, it threatens the very social cohesion the government claims to cherish. So the state would treat it accordingly: limit numbers, restrict influence and demand constant proof of harmlessness. Unlicensed Islamic preachers must be strictly prosecuted. > [Accordingly, the government](https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/gun-owners-vs-radical-muslims-double-standard-albaneses-guns-buyback-wont-address/news-story/e24b549bdbf5a51fba28bbe7c0e5c921?ref=goodoil.news) will create a National Firebrands Register. All radical Muslims, if they wish to continue to peddle their ideology, will have to apply for a licence. Once again failing the test of bold thinking. How, after all, does one distinguish a ‘radical’ Muslim from a ‘moderate’? Because the former more strictly adheres to the prescriptions of the scriptures (see point one). > A licence is not a given. Many applications will be refused because the bar will be high. The absence of a criminal history is not in itself sufficient to qualify for a radical Muslim licence. Even if granted, the licence will be suspended or revoked if the holder does not attend de-escalation and safety training each year. Prior good behaviour would not be enough. A dedicated police agency will scour social media accounts: super-angry material, the kind that calls Jews descendants of pigs and monkeys or celebrates October 7, would be banned outright. Even the milder stuff would be capped at a prohibitively low quota publication, stored in approved lockable containers, and accessible only inside licensed mosques that keep attendance records, verify every visitor’s paperwork and record all sermons in English. Random police inspections would become routine. Fail the rules and the mosque closes. > No longer will we import radical Muslims to this country. We wouldn’t for a second allow the importation of assault rifles or fully automatics, let alone one of those AR-15 high-power machineguns that obliterate people into clouds of red mist. Why on earth would we allow the same thing when it comes to assault ideologies? Domestic radicals would face the same hurdles gun owners already endure: valid reason, fit and proper person tests and the clear understanding that the priority is getting the dangerous material off the streets. Well, we should just apply the same logic as a gun buy-back: those who find the new regime intolerable would be offered a modest relocation subsidy, $450 to $1,000, to return to the countries that first shaped their worldview. There will be no quibbling over the amount: the government sets the bar and that’s that. Consultation? Unnecessary. The government would simply announce ‘strong, decisive and focused action’ on social cohesion, exactly as it did when it turned on firearms after Bondi. > The usual screechers will accuse me of false equivalence. And in their defence, they would be correct. My hypothetical is one where government cracks down on a fundamentalist offshoot that has utter contempt for Western laws and values. That is not a characteristic of your average licensed gun owner. After all, imagine that if it were licensed gun owners that were concentrated in Labor’s Western Sydney seats, dancing in the streets after a Jewish massacre, surrounding the Opera House chanting for Jews, while their local members look the other way. > Actually that’s hard to imagine, because it is so farfetched to think that licensed gun owners – who are overwhelmingly law-abiding – would do such a thing. Licensed gun owners are overwhelmingly law-abiding conservatives who already jump through endless bureaucratic hoops. Radical Muslims, by contrast, are the demographic whose ideology has produced the Opera House “Gas the Jews” mob, the street celebrations of a massacre, the Bondi killers and, indeed, the vast majority of Australia’s terror attacks and plots. Yet the government treats the first group as the urgent threat and the second as a community whose feelings must be carefully managed. --- 💡 ****If you enjoyed this article please share it using the share buttons at the top or bottom of the article.**