Here is what Peter Hitchens has to say about gun ownership from a  British  [conservative] perspective.

 

Title: Gun Law and common sense.

 

visit:http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2007/02/gun_law_and_com.html

 

"The disarming of the people,and the cancellation of their rights to defend themselves,are bad signs". - Peter Hitchens.

 

 

I would have to agree with Atlanticist911 that Peter Hitchens is one of the best conservative commentators in Britain today.

In addition to 'The Abolition of Britain' he also wrote an excellent book on crime and punishment in the British Isles. The original hardback version was called 'A Brief History of Crime.' Unusually for a British commentator Peter Hitchens chose to include a chapter defending the right to bear arms and pointing out the stupidity of gun control. Apparently, this was too much for the liberal-left dominated world of British publishing and it was expurgated from the paperback version released under the title 'The Abolition of Liberty.' 

@ Marcfrans

Further to my last posting,here is a link to the 'Question Time' programme Peter Hitchens mentions in his blog.

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/06/27/video-the-hitchens-boys-joust-over-whether-britain-should-stay-in-afghanistan/

@ Marcfrans

 

I can tell you from personal experience (a story much too long to go into here),that Peter Hitchens is an intelligent,articulate,British patriot.We disagree profoundly on Britain's role in Iraq and the broader "War on terror",but that aside,Peter is THE man.

 

visit: http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/

 

scroll down the page to: "Question Time and fraternal relations", to read more  about the Hitchens siblings.Enjoy!

@ Atlanticist911

 

Thanks for the reference to Peter Hitchens' book.   In the Editors' Review he is referred to as "the conservative brother of arch-leftist writer Christopher Hitchens". 

Christopher Hitchens is now a European 'refugee' in America (like so many other literary Europeans today), and obtained (or took) US citizenship only last year.   There is some irony to be found here, that the old marxist has found refuge (from Europe's intolerance for free speech) in the presumed citadel of capitalism (which he used to denigrate so much for so long in Britain).   While some religious-minded Americans may object, the quality of American cultural life (at least w.r.t. political discourse in the media) has been significantly enriched by the addition of the old Trotsky-ite.

" Future historians might well decide that the EU owes more to Mussolini's corporatism than to Marx's socialism". - Snorri Godhi.

 

One anagram obtained from by combining the names " Mussolini" and "Marx" produces:

 

Maxim: Ruin or Loss.

 

On a more serious note,the British newspaper columnist Peter Hitchens wrote an excellent book,"The Abolition of Britain".The book is a MUST READ for anybody wishing to approach and hopefully comprehend this subject from a particular British perspective.

 

www.conservativebookclub.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=C5707 

Aplogies for the delay in responding - I have a life.

 

"In what way, exactly, will the collapse of the EU change your daily life for the better, mister MarkE? Who will be more happier, more free, more prosper? I can't find answers to these questions."

 

I made no such claim.  I am opposed to large government and do not belive there would be any significant reduction in my proseprity if  the EU collapses under the weight of its contradictions.  I will be freer because every freedom lost in my lifetime has been taken by politicians; without the EU there would be fewer politicians claiming any rights over me.  As for my happiness, that cannot be given or taken by politicians.

 

As a European taxpayer the EU costs me money, and I want to see a justification for that cost, becuase there are many things I could spend that money on that are better than massaging the fragile egos of failed and corrupt politicians.

 

To repeat my earlier point (which you seem to be ignoring because you have failed to address it) the British people feel they were lied to when they were taking into the common market, and they resent that.  No one appreciates finding they were sold something under false pretences, even if it is for their own good (and if it is, they expect a very high level of proof before accepting it - only a fool believes a proven liar).

One anagram obtained by combining the names "Napoleon" and "Marx" produces the delightful phrase,"Anal Men,or Pox !"

 

Some choice there...

 

I rest my case.

"I have a mind to join a club and beat you over the head with it."

- Groucho Marks, The Europhile.

 

                                         vs

 

"I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members."

-Groucho Marx, The Europhobe.

And the biggest joke of all? You pays your money but you get no choice.

 

 

As long as the laws of most European countries are not re-written from scratch, it is unavoidable that the EU owes much to Napoleon.

However, future historians might well decide that the EU owes more to Mussolini's corporatism than to Marx's socialism. In fact, the main Marxist influence on the EU might well have been through Mussolini.

"No Monarchy limited or unlimited,nor any of the old Republics,can possibly be safe as long as this strange...wild,enthusiastic thing is established in the Centre of Europe".

Edmund Burke, June 1791.

"The revolution was made,not to make France free,but to make her formidable"

 

- Edmund Burke.

In June 1975 the UK had the opportunity to vote on whether to stay in the "European Community", better known at the time as the common market.  This is not what the EU has become.

 

Although too young to vote at the time, I was a member of a very political household (my father had been a local councillor and constituency agent, and I was was involved at youth level) and the matter was discussed around the dinner table in the run up to the vote.  My parents believed they were voting for a trading relationship, not a political union.

 

We have since been told the political ambitions of the EC were made clear at the time and that we should accept what we voted for.  If a political house such as mine was not aware of the political ambitions of the EC, I cannot see how it could have been made clear.  This lie has been root cause of the UK's problems ever since.

How many member states actually voted to be part of the EU? Brits voted on something in the 1970's. I think the first time the Dutch were allowed to vote on anything (and the elites tried very hard to stop that and only relented for fear of riots I think) was the Constitution and we all know the result, nearly 2/3'rds NEE. The process is much more like the USSR than anything.

You have to be amused with all of this garbage in the new Stealth Constition the only area that France objected to was the free trade/free market clause. Vive State Owned Enterprise! Vive le France!