Gun goodness: Interstate Arms Corporation 87W lever action shotgun (0)

Posted 31 July, 2007 in Diary

In order to add a bit of variety (à la one of my favourite conservative bloggers, the Texas based former South African Kim du Toit) here’s a picture of my latest firearm purchase, an Interstate Arms Corp model 87W lever action shotgun:

I’ve always been a bit of shotgun fan. Not just your lovely 34inch barrelled Italian under-and-over that swings beautifully, points brilliantly and fits like a glove, but also the kind of handy little number that puts plenty of lead down range when there’s an angry boar about to take your legs out. The 87W definitely belongs in the latter category, achieving that task probably better than anything readily available on the Australian market after the 1996 gun bans. With an overall length of just under a metre and six shots at your disposal it’s pretty handy. The muzzle blast is high and it ‘tenderises’ your shoulder quite quickly, but it’s not like your going to break a hundred or so clays in an afternoon with it. For what it’s designed it fills the niche very well.

There is another interesting point relating to this shotgun. Pre-1996 no one would have looked at one of these except your Western Action cowboy shooter. Now with pumps and semi-autos not available to most people these things are in such demand that they’re quite hard to get despite heaps of them being sold. This makes me wonder what was actually achieved by the gun bans, especially when I can get the shots out of this thing faster than my old Winchester pump and it’s got the same magazine capacity, although it takes longer to load.

Even more interesting is the fact that the Australian company ADI began to produce these as well (IAC being an American company who manufactures in China), and reviews of their prototypes appeared in ‘Australian Shooter’ magazine. I have a theory that ADI saw an unusually lucrative opportunity in the market with the other types of repeating shotguns being banned that resulted in them starting to produce firearms for the private market, something they weren’t doing previously. I also have an unsubstantiated suspicion that the reason they didn’t make it to market, despite being ready for production, was some polite persuasion by our government agencies. After all, in their enthusiasm to protect us from ourselves our government has done it in the past with Australian Automatic Arms and over time they’ve had a bit of a history of buying out and closing down gun dealers. If this ever does prove to be true remember you heard it here first.

Arafat was a raving homo (2)

Posted 17 July, 2007 in Politics

So it’s pretty much been confirmed that Arafat was a poof, and that he died from AIDS. Here’s one article, but a Google search brings up plenty more.

I’d heard the rumours but I wasn’t sure this was the case, especially since he continued to be such a prominent Palestinian leader right to his death. I didn’t think his followers would tolerate it had it been public knowledge. Although I’m not in the ‘Jews secretly run the world’ category, I did suspect that maybe it was a rumour spread by Israeli intelligence to undermine his influence.

But that’s Arabs for you; say one thing in public and do the opposite behind closed doors. I’d like to say it’s wrong to stereotype but I don’t think it’s completely unfair. It is intrinsic to both Arab and Islamic culture to have a cultivated front that is different to how you really behave.

The first question that jumps into my mind, now that we know Arafat liked the man sausage, is what was happening to all the other homosexuals when he was in control? Were they still being stoned to death or whatever these people do to gays? Did he do anything to protect his own? I bet not. After all he had a cultivated front to maintain, all the while performing terror operations on his bodyguards, you might say.

Can someone else pay for my lifestyle choices, thanks? (0)

Posted 14 July, 2007 in Politics

According to the Sydney Morning Herald, a poll by the National Foundation for Australian Women has found that,

Nearly 80 per cent of people want a paid maternity leave scheme and are willing to share the cost with employers and the Federal Government.

We’re a bunch of givers, aren’t we? We don’t even expect the government to fund our adventures into parenthood; we are willing to bear some of the cost ourselves! The SMH clarifies:

The high level of support - 76 per cent - for paid maternity leave is consistent with previous polling but people no longer appear to believe the Federal Government should bear the entire cost.

The poll showed that 71 per cent of people thought employers and employees should pay for maternity leave but a slightly higher number, 78 per cent, thought the cost should be shared by employers, workers and the Government.

Well, at least we’ve moved on from expecting the government to do everything. We’re now going to shift some of our handout demands onto our employers. Seems reasonable to me: if they’re willing to employ you as, say, a baker or accountant, then they should expect to pay you to take time off to have kids. In fact, it’s their obligation. It makes perfect sense.

But I have to ask: what about other lifestyle choices? Maybe children aren’t for you. Maybe you’re willing to forgo the kids to have an annual oversees holiday. Maybe you’re a single guy. Maybe you want to concentrate your efforts on your business or work and don’t have time for a family? Where is the government and/or employer subsidy for these choices; they’re legitimate lifestyle choices, just like having kids, goddamit? Oh yeah, it’s clearly the duty of people who make these choices to pay for the ones who choose to have kids.

The flaws I see in this poll are huge. I’d love to know exactly what the questions were. I would love paid maternity leave myself (in fact, I’ve used it!), I just don’t think others should have to pay for it. I would love Santa Claus to come every year and give me presents, but that last happened when I was 12 and I’m old enough to know that’s not how it works.

If you’re thinking of attacking me as heartless, please note that my partner and I have a child. And we decided he was so good that we’ve gone back for more. We know that this is going to cost, especially around high school time, but for us the benefits outweigh the costs. Just because other people don’t feel this way doesn’t mean that they should have to fund our choices any more than we should have to fund theirs. We pick up the Family Tax Benefit, and we pocketed the Baby Bonus, and Mel took maternity leave first time round, but tell you what: for our second one you keep the money, cut my taxes accordingly and stop burdening our employers with laws making them responsible for things they aren’t. We’ll pay for our own choices and adjust our decisions as necessary.

But ’till then, seeing as the government is going to shower us in cash we haven’t earned, feel free to attack me as heartless, ’cause I’m very comfortable and you’re all still paying for my lifestyle, suckers!

God Bless America (0)

Posted 4 July, 2007 in Politics

A happy Independence Day to the USA! Through the good times and the bad, two free and prosperous countries of the New World, we stand united in the universal right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.

Samizdata provides some excellent commentary on the Declaration of Independence (original draft penned by Thomas Jefferson), and raises the salient point that if the War of Independence had been lost everyone who signed that document would have certainly faced execution. Makes me think of Patrick Henry’s famous speech which he concluded with

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

God Bless America.

Never truer words said (0)

Posted 1 July, 2007 in Politics, Blogroll

If you want peace, freedom and prosperity then a mix of libertarianism with classical liberalism and cultural conservatism is the way to go.

Rafe Champion on this Tim Blair article. My response is number 59.