Gun Culture

Monday, November 29, 2004

Dude, your dog is so gay

Some time ago I jeered at JohnJo over at The England Project for having aquired an especially gay dog.

Now it seems that said dog is at the very least bicurious, given that it seems to have a fondness for the female leg
Leg humping
That is assuming that the pic is really a female leg, if not then it is a picture of someone who catches t’other bus - that’s definitely a girly jacket.

Swedish Gun Girls

What could be finer than gorgeous girls with few clothes but carrying pistols?


Swedish Bikini Gun Girls

Blunkett in Bother

All over the news at the moment is the spot of bother that Mad Dog has got into.
In any other government you could pretty much be sure that having been accused of cuckolding and then abusing his position by allegedly pushing a visa application through for his lover’s nanny, giving ministerial travel passes to same - that the minister would be ‘spending more time with his guide dog’.  However Trust Me Tony is fiercely defensive of his favoured allies so we see the most robust defence of a minister in stuck that we have seen in a long time.
In Mad Dog’s favour is the fact that the more underhand tabloids who would normally do this story to death (if it were not a Labour man) will be soft pedalling this one.  Mad Dog pushes the politics that the tabloids eat up, ID cards, police state etc.  He is very much their man, so it is left to the right wing press.  The Mail loves ID cards and will be unwilling to stick the knife into someone who they see as the best Home Secretary the Tories never had and the Telegraph will almost certainly back off now that an ‘independant’ inquiry is to be held.
The inquiry will allow the iron to cool and will result in a whitewash of the scale of the Butler and Hutton inquiries.
Game over and Mad Dog can get back to building the police state and destroying what remains of traditional English freedoms, a chance to spike a statist gun will have been missed.

A tragedy.

Tuesday, November 23, 2004

Civil Contingencies Bill Passed

As discussed previously here at Gun Culture, the Civil Contingencies Bill is a horrendous piece of legislation.  It gives the regime of the day almost unlimited powers to suspend any Bill/Statute whatever, seize any property and basically do what ever the hell they like.  This truly is a dictator’s dream.  It really cannot be stressed enough what a danger this represents.  Attempts by the Lords to exclude Magna Carta from the reach of the act were defeated and we really have no defence whatsoever against this.

What opposition have we seen from HM Loyal Opposition?
Nichts, nowt, yadda.
What chance that a future Conservative Government will repeal this revolting legislation?
See above.

The ban on foxhunting is as nothing to this bill, but it seems to me rather expedient that the Bills were enacted so closely together thus ensuring that media attention would focus on the men and women in pinks.

RIP freedom and democracy.

Deer Hunt Tragedy

Six hunters have been shot and killed in Wisconsin USA by what appears to be a dispute over shooting rights.  A further two hunters are wounded.
The killer Chai Vang is a member of the Hmog community, refugees from Laos.  There is apparently some problem with the Hmog not understanding the need to have permission to hunt in some areas with confrontations having occured before - albeit without tragic result. 

The fact that Vang used an SKS rifle is bound to be seized upon by liberals as soon as the initial shock wears off.  This is a gift to those who believe that semi-auto rifles should be banned.

Telegraph story here.

Thursday, November 18, 2004

More EU corruption

If you were ever in any doubt as to what a shifty bunch of corrupt bastards the EU bigwigs are have a read of this press release which describes how UKIP MEP Nigel Farage exposes the corrupt past of Jacques Barrot.

UKIP MEP threatened with arrest for telling truth to European Parliament

UKIP MEP Nigel Farage, the co-president of the Independence & Democracy
Group in the European Parliament, was this morning threatened with legal
action by the Parliament’s President  for telling the truth about the French
Commissioner designate, Jacques Barrot.

Mr Farage had asked fellow MEPs whether they would ‘buy a used car from this
man’, when he revealed that M. Barrot had been sentenced to an 8 month
suspended sentence and was barred from elected office in France for 2 years,
after being convicted in 2000 of embezzling  FFR 25m (US$ 3.8m) from
government funds by diverting it into the coffers of his party.

French President Jacques Chirac subsequently granted M Barrot a presidential
amnesty, making it illegal under French law to even mention the conviction.
However, Mr Farage felt it was proper that MEPs were informed of the past of
the Vice President designate, and used his speech in the Strasbourg chamber
to do so.

Many French MEPs were not aware of the conviction, as in compliance with
French law it was totally censored from the French media.

The President of the European Parliament, Spaniard Josep Borrell, warned Mr
Farage that he should withdraw his remarks, as he may face ‘legal
consequences’. Mr Farage, who in theory enjoys Parliamentary immunity while
speaking in the chamber, refused to do so, and was, amazingly, condemned by
other MEPs for telling the truth.

Mr Farage said, “Yesterday, the Court of Auditors refused to sign off the EU
’s accounts for the 10th year in a row, because 93.5% of the EU’s
expenditure was, in their words, ‘unsafe or riddled with errors’.

“Today, the European Parliament is prepared to overlook the conviction of  a
senior member of the Commission for embezzling government funds, and is
prepared instead to threaten with arrest the person who reveals it.

“What clearer indication can there possibly be of the corruption and
hypocrisy which pervades the entire European project from the lowest to the
highest levels?” ENDS

Notes to Editors:
For further information, please contact :
Nigel Farage MEP,

Mark Croucher, UKIP Press Officer,

What a crazy place where an institutionally corrupt organization proposes to appoint a convicted corrupt offical to high office and then censures and threatens with arrest an elected representative for exposing this.  However given that the EU sacks those who blow the whilstle on bent accounting practice, we should not be at all surprised.

Tuesday, November 16, 2004

Dinner Guest from Hell

Now I’m assuming that anyone unfortunate enough to have accidentally clicked on a link to this site is already a reader of the blogs on my blog roll.
If not and maybe you haven’t read The England Project.
If not then get over there right now and read what JohnJo has to say on the subject of the smoking ban in his piece An Englishmans Home is his Castle.
Our hero clearly speaks from bitter experience of a dinner guest who you’d cheerfully beat to death with the serving spoon within oh so tempting reach.

You see, it’s not really just about smoking. If it were some progress might be possible and the dinner party might not descend into the last one that old cow ever comes to. It’s about different types of people with different values and principles. You might not have noticed but you and yoghurt girl have never really got on that well. She’s abrasive, she hates your 4x4, you’re good lady forbids you to bring up any number of your hobbies when she’s around and, frankly, she’s a bit of a trog. She thinks guns are evil but for one reason or another your wife won’t allow you to take the woman upstairs and lock her in your specially constructed ‘evil room’.

Go there and go there quickly, for as soon as Mrs England Project finds out - that there post is gonna get pulled!

No Smoking

The government is widely expected to announce plans to outlaw smoking in certain ‘public’ places today.
As a non-smoker I dislike going to pubs and smelling of the stink of smoke, I dislike it when smokers light up in the range of people (especially me!) are eating.
So do you know what I do?  I don’t bitch to the government in order to get smoking banned, I avoid pubs with poor or no ventilation.  I seek out the non-smoking zones where available.  Being terribly British however I don’t ask people not to smoke where I’m eating, I just tut and mutter about the rudeness.  Maybe fix them with a steely glare.  Never works though!

Those who agree with a ban (tossers!) should bear in mind that places such as restraunts and pubs are in fact not public places.
They are private places to which the public is allowed access by consent of the owner. The owner or their representative is entitled to bar access to anyone for whatever reason. They are not publicly owned and the public has no absolute right of access.
If government wants to ban smoking in public buildings (i.e. state owned buildings) then as the owner they have that right, but to outlaw an activity in a private establishment should not be within their right to do.

They may have the power, they certainly do not have the right.

Monday, November 15, 2004

Wonder treatment reduces breast cancer risk

A study suggests that a simple procedure performed twice a week may reduce the risk of women contracting breast cancer by an amazing 40%!
Read it here!

Telegraph Self Defence Campaign Stalling?

I fear that the Sunday Telegraph’s campaign is running out of steam after only a few editions.
From last weeks fairly strong suite of three articles we are down to Learn to defend yourself - it could save your life which shows some practical hints to defending yourself with methods currently legally available.
Laudible and sensible, but Mr Sunday Telegraph - how about showing us some of the methods and tools which are legally available to citizens elsewhere in the world which are a sight more effective and safe for the defender than putting keys between your fingers?  Tools such as irritant sprays, batons (sale, transfer and promotion of these now illegal), tasers and of course the ultimate - the gun.

Response to Firearms Consultation Poor

As reported in the Sportsman’s Association December Newsletter the response by shooters to the ‘Consultation’ has been pitiful.  Some 4500 responses and for sure all of those were not from shooters, a fair number are bound to have been from gun grabbers.
Four and a half thousand out of all the firearms users and enthusiasts is hopeless, how many of those who didn’t respond will then complain when the new raft of restrictions come out that their organization has not done enough?
As Richard Malbon says

What do we have to do to convince the ‘silent majority’ of shooters that they should get stuck in personally on such exercises rather than just leaving it to their Associations – and then complaining that the Association has not done enough?

I hate to say this Richard, but I don’t think we can convince them.  I believe there are two categories of passive shooters.  Firstly those who believe it is a waste of time, that the government will do what they will regardless.  I have some sympathy with this, but you must do what you can even though the task seems hopeless.  You must do what is right, it is a fundamental duty.
Secondly there are those who will join an organisation such as BASC or The Sportsman’s and then assume that this is somehow a job done.  It is not, it is just the beginning.
How many of us lament that we wish our organisations were more like the US NRA?  I know I do.  But here’s the rub, to have an organisation like the NRA we must become more like members of the NRA.  We must give money for the organisation to keep a high profile, to advertize, to lobby and to inform.  More importantly we must act when the call comes.  All members of BASC must surely have read the request to reply to the consulation, all readers of The Sportsman’s Newsletter must have read Richard’s urging that we need to reply to this paper. 
Yet the call went largely unheeded.  We have an uphill task, the wider public have been brainwashed into believing that guns are evil.  We do not have the large base of gun owners that the NRA have in the US, nor do we have their advantage of a sensible approach to personal defence.  This means that we must be more active, that we must be more vigilant not less.

All those head in the sand shooters who heard the call but looked the other way, these are the people I shall blame when the next wave of restrictions come.  Not the government, for it is their nature, but those who should have been allies but lacked the will to defend their brethren when all it would have cost them is a stamp, some paper and half an hour of their time.  Shame on them.

Junk Food Ads

So now we are to see a ban on junk food ads ?
More of the same I guess, I’m not sure which angers and frustrates me more - is it the government for doing this bull or is it the sheeple for feeling that this sort of interference from government is not only appropriate but desirable?
Of course with all government interference there is the ‘think of the children’ angle.  Kids are getting fat, so we need to regulate when ‘junk’ food ads are shown.  I for one will not be sorry to see the demise of those tedious Ronald McDonald ads which pop up every few years - exactly the same ad, different sprogs with those bizarre short teeth that they have.  C’mon you know the ones, the kids sing some crappy song and at the end one shouts the last line and Ronald gives him a look.
Digressing!  The action is cynically motivated because the inference is that parents cannot control Bratleigh or Snotly in their brainwashed desire to shovel mountains of crap down their throats.  Clearly they need the protection of Big Government to raise the next generation of productive workers.  The Children Are Our Future (TM).
The ban will not acheive it’s stated aim of course, just as every statist interference has not.  All it will acheive is to acustom the populous to having ever minute detail of their lives controlled by the state.

Friday, November 12, 2004

Arafat Dead

No loss then.
Yet the media are covering the story as if a worthy had tragically passed on, the BBC (of course) are showing the footage of the Cairo service.
It really beats me why they (the liberal left) loved him so when all he has ever done for his cause is let them down.  Back in the days of handshakes on the White House lawn, Arafat was offered pretty much everything they were asking for and yet they stalled.
It was said of Arafat that he never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Rot in hell terrorist bastard.

Monday, November 08, 2004

The Peel Principles

The Policeman’s Blog reminds us of the Peel Principles which the modern day police force has pretty much forgotten.
Most pertinant to us who believe in the right and duty of the individual to prevent a breech of the peace is this one:

Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence

Since Peel’s time of course a number of Bills have been passed which have changed this balance beyond recognition, but they have had the side blow that we have now become a walk on by society and with good reason.  The monopoly on force is jealously guarded by the Criminal inJustice System and the underclass know this, young thugs on street corners know that they can hurl abuse at anyone getting them to move on or stop their vandalism without getting a well deserved slap - protected by the very system that should be acting against them.

The People Have Spoken

I managed to miss my copy of Sunday’s Telegraph yesterday, in it’s place in Sainsbury’s was some horrible red top or another and the local newsagents had no papers at all (!).
However thanks to the wonders of the web I am reading the article I am most interested in on-line today.
Interesting that the article is entitled “The People Have Spoken”, it brings back memories of Radio 4’s ‘Listener’s Law’.  You may well recall that the recall that the chosen law to be championed by Stephen Pound MP was the Homeowner Protection option.  Upon hearing the winner Mr Pound first invoked a quote “The people have spoken, the bastards”.  Mr Pound also went on to imply that the listeners were not the clever folks he had previously considered them.
Back to the Telegraph article then, the whole article sends me into nods of agreement but to pick out a couple of favourite paragraphs

It is also not easy to understand the reasons for the reluctance to change the law. In defence of the status quo, it is claimed that it is the job of the police, not the individual citizen, to maintain public order. That would be fine as a justification if there were any evidence that the police could actually perform that role - but of course, they cannot do so, and they never have been able to. It is not just that their response times are often pitifully slow, or that they are frequently so concerned about ensuring that they protect their own officers that they fail to intervene even when they arrive at the scene of a violent crime; it is also that it is impossible for any police force, even one in a police state, to control the lives of the citizens sufficiently to prevent the commission of all violent crimes.

Precisely what we have been saying for years, it is impossible for the state (or even society) to ensure individual safety, the best that can be hoped for is a reduction of risk.  When the chips are down, it is the individual who has their own fate in their hands.
More stuff we have been saying for years:

The police jealously guard what they conceive to be their monopoly of the legitimate use of force. It produces the absurd situation we saw last week, when officers entitled to carry guns in London handed in their weapons because two of their number were suspended for shooting dead an unarmed man going about his lawful business. If an ordinary citizen did such a thing, the police would be the first to insist that he should be tried for murder. We do not suggest the two police officers should be prosecuted: we only call for parity between the police and the people. If the police are entitled, when they believe their lives are threatened, to take lethally offensive action, then so should home owners.

The police derive their authority from the same source as the people, i.e. a common law duty to preserve the peace. 

The Telegraph is saying the right things, it needs to keep saying them until such time as all politicians start to hear and take heed.