Oppression By Bureaucracy

It’s not often I get an email that creates both sadness and almost-ungovernable rage, but Reader Bruce sent me this:

Last week, on one of the saddest days of my life, I went to a local police station and handed over my three rifles for destruction by the “Commissioner of Police”.

They were nothing special: a B/A Savage 320D in .22 Hornet; an Anschutz .22RF 1451 Sporter (with custom fibreglass stock); a Savage Model 12 .223 Varmint heavy barrel (in a custom fibreglass stock). But they were MINE! to me, they represented something: that society had accepted me as a responsible human being. I obsessively hand loaded for the Hornet and .223, seeking the best performance each was capable of.

So why did I do the unthinkable?

Firstly, my wife and I “downsized”. We moved from a suburban 4 x 2 on a huge lot into a 3 x 2 apartment close to the river. And then came the first cruncher. By law, my firearms had to be kept in an approved gun safe, bolted into brick or concrete on two surfaces. And the only place for that in our new abode was in the lock-up roller door garage. Uh-uh … the law says it has to “be under the main roof” … and it isn’t. My safe was “grandfathered” anyway. Had I bought another firearm or had one of mine rebarrelled, I would have been compelled to buy a new “approved” and vastly more expensive safe. So I had nowhere to store my guns (or ammo, for that matter).

Secondly, I have been a competitive target shooter for 51 years, from air pistol to pistol to full-bore to rimfire. I am nationally qualified as a Range Officer. I was, until I let it lapse, a qualified Commonwealth Shooting Coach. I have been able to use my rifles competitively and for hunting, quite legally. Not so now. If I want to use them competitively, I have to get “another” licence category for them, and compete a regulated number of times per year. Once they are so classified, I can no longer use them for hunting or vermin control. The reason? Our the Minister for Police declared that target firearms are likely to have lightened triggers and are not “safe” to use off a range.

My dilemma. Give up plinking or bunny busting or fox shooting, or give up competition. OK, so I’ll just use them for the former and forego competition. Problem. I can only shoot on “approved” properties. My friend has a farm. I can shoot there, provided he registers me every year on an internet portal with the police department. If his neighbour wants me to shoot a few foxes on his property, I am not allowed to unless he also registers me electronically. Oh, and calibres are limited by the size of the property you have permission to shoot on.

And so I handed them in. I have owned a firearm (or more than one) since 1967. I’m pleased to say I’ve never done anything dangerous or even vaguely illegal with any of them. And to now be told that I can’t have them unless I jump through bureaucratic hoops hurts. Deeply.

My point? DON’T GIVE YOURS UP! Fight the bastards until you can fight no longer.

Note that gun ownership can be ended simply by incremental “reasonable” gun control regulation — e.g. guns must be stored in a safe —–> safes must be encased in brick walls (an almost impossible condition to meet for most people, which is the point of such bastardy).

Bruce, my friend:  if you ever make it to Texas, I’ll organize a Schutzenfest for you with some of my fellow Texans, at a place where we can bang away all day without fear or apprehension.  As for guns… let’s just say you’d be overwhelmed by choice.

Comeback

I have to say that I’m starting to get more and more impressed by young Sydney Sweeney as time goes on — and not just for the usual reasons.

First it was that wonderful jeans commercial, and her total unconcern about the critical response.  Next was the followup, which also met with disapproval, and her “don’t give a damn” response.

Then came that infamous interview with some feministical harpy, which gave birth to hundreds if not thousands of memes.

Now she’s posed stark naked (well, not actually) for some sports betting commercial or other, and when the usual harpies started wailing about how she was demeaning wimmens’ sports by appearing naked, she simply responded by posting pics of several sportswomen’s naked pics from their own ad campaigns.

Gotta love the gal.


Yeah, no Sydney pics, only links.  Blame the lawyers.

Wait, What?

Okay, this one got my blood boiling:

A Texas man with a prior murder conviction is accused of running a “full-service drug operation” near several schools where authorities say surveillance showed what appeared to be teenagers purchasing narcotics and fentanyl pills disguised to look like ecstasy.

A convicted murderer was out free on the streets?  IN TEXAS?  How the fuck did that come about?  Why hadn’t he been executed, or at least still be behind bars for the rest of his worthless fucking life?

Also relevant:  whose signature is on the petition for release, and whose signature is on the release authorization?  (Yeah, we’ll probably never know that, because if we did, it could easily come about that the signatories would be dragged out of their house and beaten with iron bars and chains.  In any just society, that is.)

Read the whole thing to get the full horror of it.

Range time.

Troublesome Equations

Modern feminism can’t agree on what a woman is. It’s defended violent male predators in women’s prisons and stayed silent on UK rape gangs to avoid being called racist.”SOTI.

There are all sorts of social couplings [sic]  that anyone with a brain could see would lead to trouble.  (Note the “with a brain” stipulation;  this will be important later.)  Allow me to list but a few.

  • Men (even men who think they’re women) allowed access to a woman’s changing room:  trouble.
  • Homosexual Boy Scout leaders being allowed to run Scout troops full of young boys:  trouble.
  • Female sailors forced to share quarters with male sailors on board a Navy vessel:  trouble.
  • Male prison warders being employed in women’s prisons:  trouble.
  • Female prison warders being employed in men’s prisons.  trouble.

My point is that common sense would dictate that all the above should be recognized as being potentially troublesome, because everyday experience (not to mention history) can provide endless examples thereof.  (Here’s one example of the last in the above list.)

And yet all the above silliness is not only allowed, but encouraged — and then when the S Hits The F, everyone is surprised?  (Well, I’m not surprised, and nor is anyone with some vestige of common sense.)

Frankly, I’m done with all of it.  Let the social experimenters continue with their endless, foolish experiments, I don’t care a fig.

If girls get raped by men in their high school- or college toilets and locker rooms, I don’t care.

If boys come back from their Scout camps with a shiny new  Fellatio Badge:  hang the offending Scout leaders and fine / flog / imprison the parents for their negligence;  I don’t care.

If every female sailor gets pregnant and has to go on some kind of lifetime G.I. benefits, and ships sink because of a shortage of sailors;  so be it.

If the incidence of rape by male warders skyrockets in women’s prisons;  whatever.

If female warders get pregnant by their convict boyfriends or help said boyfriends get access to drugs, booze or guns;  tell someone who cares.

I’m not interested in getting excited about foolishness and its many consequences.

Because if I do get excited about all the above, then I’m the intolerant one, the male chauvinist, the right-winger, the whatever.

I don’t care about that, either.  FOAD, the lot of you.

Shine A Little Light

Here’s an interesting story.  A journalist has been plagued by a troll who has followed all her writings and articles, and infested the comments section with mean and nasty little snarks.  So the journo decided to find out exactly who this person was, and she actually went to the troll’s house (lair!) to confront her;  but the troll wasn’t home.  Go and read the details.  (I couldn’t post an excerpt because the article has been preserved as a screen save rather than as text, but the link should be good.)

Read more

Getting It Right

Still more to learn from the Danes:

Denmark will ban burkas in schools and universities as part of a plan to tackle what it calls ‘parallel societies’.

The garment worn by some Muslim women is already banned in public places in the Scandinavian country, but the move would now expand the order into classrooms across Denmark. 

In Denmark, the term ‘parallel societies’ refers to residential areas where more than half of inhabitants are from an immigrant background. 

The ban on full-face coverings was introduced in Denmark in 2018, with those found to break the rule forced to pay a £1,300 fine. 

And the best part:

Denmark has some of the toughest migration laws in Europe, which were introduced after its Left-leaning government, which came into power in 2019, promised to curb migration to ‘protect Danishness’.

The underlying sentiment:  fit in or fuck off — or to be more precise, fit in or we’ll make you fuck off.

Gotta say, I’m not disagreeing with the Danes here.

I know, I know:  we wouldn’t do this to Orthodox Jews or the Amish, who create their own “parallel societies”.

The difference is that, unlike the Muslims, neither the Orthos or the Amish are interested in eventually forcing the rest of their host country to become like them.