Ezra Levant from the archives

Via Counting Cats, I was reminded of Ezra Levant's interview by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and went looking for more of the same, and came to this, in which Ian Fine, the head of the CHHC gets slammed. For some reason, Ezra's expression reminds me of cat, playing with a mouse.

Very enjoyable to see the boot on the other foot and squarely up the arse of the freedom-haters, which Ian Fine represents.

Penn & Teller on Second Hand Smoke Bullshit

Thanks for the tip, Barry C.

Joe Lieberman: scumbag maggot who loves tyranny and hates America

Listen to the end. The last line gives it away. I ask you America, is this what you want your country to become?

Hat tip: Infowars

"So many targets, so little time"

Hickok45 having fun with his Gen 4 Glock 21

Elsewhere Hickok continues his war on pumpkins.

Armed guards for merchant ships: the penny finally drops

Oh, let us rejoice! The brain-dead zombie control freaks of the British government have stumbled into a Eureka moment: ships with their own firearms are less likely to fall prey to pirates. Well done! Thus I read:

British merchant ships sailing off the coast of Somalia will soon be able to carry armed guards to ward off pirate attacks, Prime Minister David Cameron said on Sunday.

Britain is one of only a few countries with major shipping fleets to currently ban armed guards on its vessels, alongside the likes of Japan, Greece and the Netherlands.

However, owners of ships from other countries are increasingly putting guards onboard as national navies struggle to combat Somali piracy in the vast Indian Ocean, a problem which is costing the world economy billions of dollars a year.

In an interview with the BBC, Cameron said that Britain now planned to license guards to carry firearms on ships.

"The evidence is that ships with armed guards don't get attacked, don't get taken for hostage or for ransom and so we think this is a very important step forward," Cameron said.

I wonder if there's any chance Cameron will read the evidence that shows the same amazing correlation between armed citizens not getting attacked, taken hostage etc,. compared to disarmed citizens? Of course not.

The other question in my mind is; whose bright idea was it to disarm the merchant ships in the first place?

Slingin' lead

More fun with Hickok45, as he tries out three different caliber Springfield Armory XDm 5.25s.

"What else needs to be shot?"

I guess those of you who liked the post below may well have clicked through to Hickok45's channel and seen this one too, but it's worth seeing again. Simple and effective; pretty much like the Glock 21. It makes you realise how much fun we're all missing in this huge victim disarmament zone called England.

Lovely guns

One from Hickok45's channel, without the venerable old man for a change, seen below with a light saber.

The Lesson: sheep get slaughtered

The big state / passive citizen model has got to go.

It has been exposed for all to see in the streets of London. The idea that you should be good little sheep and the state would be the sheepdog.

Don't worry about the wolves, they say, we'll protect you.

Only they can't protect us, or they won't. What they can do and what they have done is try to prevent us having the ability to defend ourselves and our property. Oh sure, you still have the right to defend yourself, but your means of doing it have been removed to the greatest extent that they can manage. Not only that, the weaker and more passive the sheep become, the greater the risk that the sheepdogs will turn wolf, and then what do you do?

As Single Acts commented on a post below:

"The tragic disarming of law abiding people has left them defenceless in the face of criminals. The fact that the police are clearly overwhelmed and not able to answer and respond to 999 calls in a timely manner surely shows our absolute right to self-protection. How many stores would be burned down if the shopkeepers were on the roofs with guns? Zero. "

I noted the reports of self-defence groups in Dalston and it was genuinely the only good news out of yesterday. Many people are now calling for martial law, curfews and troops on the streets. That ain't gonna happen, but the state and its PR department (AKA the government) are certainly going to swing their 'robust response' into place, whilst everyone keeps their fingers crossed that the looters have glutted themselves on adrenalin, and want to stay in tonight playing with their new Wii consoles. However the real and lasting lesson must be learned: you can be passive and trusting like a sheep if you choose, and just so long as a wolf doesn't come along everything will seem fine. But if that wolf does come, it's too late to wait for the sheepdog.

DON'T BE A SHEEP

The incredible chutzpah of the gun-grabbers

The massive gun-running scheme to supply the Mexican drug cartels by the BATFE acting on orders from the Whitehouse is now, as predicted, being used to force through anti-constitutional gun-grabbing legislation by the usual DC vermin.

They never stop. They never will stop, not until the Republic lays smashed under their jackbooted feet. They hate everything America stands for, and they should all fuck off to North Korea where they belong.

Hat tip: Kurt Nimmo at Infowars

Irony overload

Some guy from the BNP has been charged with a 'public order offence' (notice the vagueness of that term) for something he did in his back garden. Not nude sunbathing, but rather burning a book. Not just any book, mind - that book.

"A statement from the Home Office said: "The government absolutely condemns the burning of the Qur'an. It is fundamentally offensive to the values of our pluralist and tolerant society."

Tolerant, but not that tolerant, it seems. The BNP may well lack a certain pluralism and tolerance, but so does that book. To claim that burning it, especially in a private place, is any kind of public order offence, you have to use the elliptical logic that someone else is going to over-react and that they are going to commit the offence, which stinks of being a special privilege bestowed by a cowardly state on one section of society. This would not apply to a Bible-burner, because it is assumed Christians can take it in their stride, which no doubt they can. It would not apply to communists over burning a copy of Das Kapital, or atheists if someone torched Dawkins' 'God Delusion'. It only applies to one group in society, who have officially been designated as having the thinnest of skins. The question is; are any muslims man enough to stand up and denounce the arrest, on the grounds that it's actually no big deal?

I won't hold my breath for that, but the case does draw attention to the merits of a written constitution. At least in America, a citizen can point to the Bill of Rights and say 'fuck you and your thin skin. Read Article One and kiss my arse.'

Collective guilt

An individual is now in custody for the Arizona shootings. The facts are not clear yet, but it's certain that he has certain opinions that are shared with other people. By the principle of 'collective guilt', we can associate these other people with the killer. Right?

To begin with, I hear he's an atheist. Do the atheists want to own up? Are you prepared to accept your culpability in this crime? I doubt it. Why would you? You would probably retort:

A) who says he's an atheist?
B) Even if he is, so what? That's nothing to do with me. Just because he came to a similar conclusion on a particular question, does not implicate me in his crime.

Quite so. However, in this case the killer is being associated with people with whom he has no more connection than in the example above. The case is being used to feed the rhetoric about 'domestic extremists', and attack the First and Second Amendments.

On both of these latter, there can be no compromise. Freedom of speech stays. Liberty to keep and bear arms stays. Not everyone will see it that way, and I doubt if I can convince them out of their position.

I blame The Beatles

When the Manson Family went on their murderous spree, they were influenced by The Beatles' track 'Helter Skelter' which had been used by the supposedly lovable moptops to pass on information of the coming race war to Charlie and co. and calling on them to get the whole thing started. Clearly The Beatles should have been in the dock alongside Family members.

There's no justice.

Meanwhile, over in America a Senator has been shot by a crazy leftist. It's obviously those Tea Party people who are to blame.

Gun liberty: Changing the odds

This is from a while back I think, but it's a debate that continues. John Stossel over the course of the show is very even-handed, although his position is, of course, pro-liberty, and there are a number of Bradyists being given a chance to spout.

Part 4 is above:

The whole of the show:

Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; Part 4; Part 5; Part 6; Part 7;

Thanks to The Channel of Liberty on YouTube.

"I would rather die in yonder gallows, than live for a minute more in slavery."

The final words, or certainly near-final, of the great Samuel Sharpe. Round about now, back in 1831, all hell was breaking loose in Jamaica in what is known, iamongst other things, as the Baptist War. Led by Samuel Sharpe, a slave and Baptist preacher, the slaves refused to return to work after Christmas, demanding instead to be paid. It didn't play out too well for those involved, but it undoubtedly hastened the end of slavery in Jamaica and other parts of the British Empire.

Oi, Vaz, you cunt, the Law on guns is simple, it's just wankers like you don't respect it

The Moose has got me riled up, reminding me of this piece of news, in which that contemptible rabble in Westminster are trying to take what's left of our gun rights from us.

Chairman of the Committee for Vexatious Oppressions, Keith Vaz, declares:

"Current gun law is a mess. It needs to be simplified, [and made] clear and consistent to be properly understood by both those using firearms for legitimate purposes and those in charge of enforcing the law."

So let me help you out, Vaz - and note that there is a difference between the Law and the fucking reams of legislation you petty tyrant wankers jiz out - here's the Law:

"To vindicate these rights [the liberties of Englishmen], when actually violated or attacked, the subjects of England are entitled, in the first place, to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law; next, to the right of petitioning the king and parliament for redress of grievances; and, lastly, to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence."

Sir William Blackstone
Commentaries on the Laws of England
Chapter I - Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals

Pretty clear, Vaz. Now fuck off.

Peter Hitchens on drugs

Chance would be a fine thing. If ever a man needed a toke, it would be Peter Hitchens. He bewails the failure of the state to prosecute the war on drugs, but ignores the fact America has aggressively done so, without much success, unless you count the huge number of non-violent so-called criminals now working in the prison industrial complex as success. He dismisses the clear parallels to alcohol prohibition, and he gives the most spurious reasons to support his views, even though they run counter to everything he's ever said to defend traditional English civil liberties.

In his latest missive, he justifies his views by claiming that drugs make people more likely to rob, cause car accidents, under-perform in work etc. So, what? Punish the robber for the act of robbery, punish the drugged up driver for the actual harm they have done and sack the lazy worker. In the first case, he is falling for the exact same bullshit that our tender-hearted judges do, every time a criminal plays the violin about how 'it was the drugs wot made me do it'. The day judges stop treating drug addiction as some kind of mitigation is the day criminals stop claiming addiction as the cause of their wrong-doing.

Hitchens' main error, in my eyes, is that he believes that the state should outlaw immorality. When he says that taking drugs is immoral, he has a point, but it is not for the state to rule on questions of morality, which will always be subjective. The only valid basis for declaring something a crime is that the act aggresses against another person or their property. Taking drugs does not do this. It may indeed harm the body, but that body belongs to the perpetrator. You cannot commit assault against yourself, any more than you can steal from yourself.

The state does not own me. It is none of the state's business what I do to myself. I do not need the state to protect me from myself, and I will not accept its claim to do so as a valid justification for violating my liberty and my property, so bring back some Victorian values and get rid of these ridiculous drug laws.

Hitchens being right

An excellent speech from Peter Hitchens to the Cambridge Union on the subject of human rights and why the concept is corrosive to our liberties. It is marred by poor sound, and the obligatory wankers who seem to attend such debates only to cough their foul germs upon the rest of the audience. My only bone of contention is around the reference to Jeremy Bentham, the citation referring to natural rights, rather than human rights.

Sometimes I wish I were American ...

This would be the contents of my bedside table (sigh).

(pic)

Inalienable Wisdom

A short extract from a speech by Judge Andrew Napolitano, discussing Natural Rights, at the Mises Institute. The full speech is here.