Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 11:15:05 -0600 Message-Id: <199911261715.LAA13619@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca> X-Authentication-Warning: broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca: majordomo set sender to owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca using -f From: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #215 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Sender: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Errors-To: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Cdn-Firearms Digest Friday, November 26 1999 Volume 03 : Number 215 In this issue: Thank you... SAFE HOUSES COMMONS DEBATES - November 24, 1999 DEBATS__DES__COMMUNES_-_24_novembre_1999 WHY GUNS? -- by L. Neil Smith Re: FW: NEWS RELEASE ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 09:42:35 -0600 From: "C. Dillabough" Subject: Thank you... Dear Minister, I have just read the article by Robert Fire in the November 12th edition of the National Post entitled "Ontario minister fumes over gun registry costs:Spend on prevention" (see below). How good it feels to know that there are at least some elected representatives with the common sense and backbone to take a stand against Bill C-68 and the federal Liberals. The federal Liberals are feeling so arrogant these days that they are running rough shod over the rights of gun owners and throwing countless hundreds of millions of taxpayer's dollars down the drain to buy sympathetic votes. I have been a supporter of Mike Harris since 1995 and of our former MPP, and my good friend, Noble Villeneuve for many years. It is indeed refreshing to see a government that is acting to spare taxpayers undo hardship by reducing unnecessary spending. A common sense approach is such an uncommon thing these days - it shouldn't be! I can only hope that Mike Harris will be a trend setter across Canada. Again, many thanks for being a voice for firearm owners and overburdened taxpayers. Sincerely, Charles Dillabough, B.Comm., Certified General Accountant ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 09:42:51 -0600 From: "BOB LICKACZ" Subject: SAFE HOUSES Subject: COMMONS DEBATES - November 24, 1999 COMMONS DEBATES November 24, 1999 Page: 1683 [English] GUN REGISTRATION Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the justice minister commissioned an auditing firm to review the entire gun registry system. Through access to information, I find out that this secret report concludes that, after taking more than three years and $300 million to design, this system is inflexible, inefficient and inoperable and tinkering will not fix it. * (1455 ) How much more money are we going to throw at a system that her own study says is just plain not working? Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has read the report, he should know that is not what the independent consultant concluded. The consultant concluded that there had been some start up problems with the firearms registry system, and then concluded that these problems were not unusual for a program of this size, complexity or visibility. We have implemented three-quarters of the proposed efficiency recommendations of the independent consultant. Let me remind hon. members that because of the firearms registration system, we have- The Speaker: The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville. Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister continues to defend something that is indefensible. If the gun registry is working so well, why did the Minister of Justice receive a letter two weeks ago from the solicitor general of Ontario calling on her to scrap the gun registry system? When will the minister follow this advice, cut her losses, save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars and scrap the registry? Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am really not well- placed to comment on what is in the mind of the solicitor general of Ontario. However, let me share with the House some of the accomplishments of our firearms registry system to date. We have blocked over 3,000 potentially dangerous gun sales. We have refused 548 applicants for public safety reasons. We have revoked 451 licences for reasons of public safety. This system is saving Canadian lives. * ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 09:42:47 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: DEBATS__DES__COMMUNES_-_24_novembre_1999 DEBATS DES COMMUNES 24 novembre 1999 L'ENREGISTREMENT DES ARMES A FEU M. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Monsieur le President, la ministre de la Justice a charge un cabinet de verification comptable d'analyser l'ensemble du systeme d'enregistrement des armes a feu. Grace a des renseignements obtenus aux termes de la Loi sur l'acces a l'information, j'ai appris que ce rapport secret concluait que ce systeme, dont la conception a pris trois ans et coute 300 millions de dollars, est rigide, inefficace et inoperant, et qu'il faudra plus que de simples petites modifications pour le rendre fonctionnel. * (1455) Combien d'argent sera encore consacre a ce systeme qui, selon le propre rapport de la ministre, ne fonctionne tout simplement pas? L'hon. Anne McLellan (ministre de la Justice et procureur general du Canada, Lib.): Monsieur le President, si le depute a lu le rapport, il devrait savoir que cela ne correspond pas a la conclusion a laquelle en est venu le consultant independant. Le consultant a observe des problemes au moment de l'etablissement du registre des armes a feu, mais a conclu que ces problemes ne sont pas inhabituels lorsqu'il est question d'un programme aussi vaste, aussi complexe et aussi visible. Nous avons mis en oeuvre les trois quarts des recommandations que nous faisait le consultant independant pour ameliorer l'efficacite du systeme. Permettez-moi de rappeler aux deputes que, grace au registre des armes a feu, nous avons. . . Le President: Le depute de Yorkton-Melville a la parole. M. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Monsieur le President, la ministre s'evertue a defendre l'indefendable. Si le registre des armes a feu fonctionne si bien, pourquoi la ministre de la Justice a-t-elle recu, il y a deux semaines, une lettre du solliciteur general de l'Ontario l'exhortant a abolir ce registre? Quand la ministre se resignera-t-elle a suivre ce conseil, a sauver les meubles, a faire economiser des millions de dollars aux contribuables et a abolir le registre? L'hon. Anne McLellan (ministre de la Justice et procureur general du Canada, Lib.): Monsieur le President, je suis mal placee pour commenter ce qui se passe dans la tete du solliciteur general de l'Ontario. Permettez-moi toutefois de rappeler a la Chambre ce qu'a accompli le registre des armes a feu jusqu'a maintenant. Nous avons bloque la vente de plus de 3 000 armes potentiellement dangereuses. Nous avons rejete 548 demandes d'armes pour des raisons de securite publique. Nous avons revoque au-dela de 451 permis pour des raisons de securite publique. Notre systeme nous permet de sauver des vies au Canada. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 09:42:07 -0600 From: Matthew Gaylor Subject: WHY GUNS? -- by L. Neil Smith [This was written for an American Audience...but it still applies] From: "L. Neil Smith" Subject: Please Pass It On ... WHY GUNS? -- by L. Neil Smith -- From the "Webley Page" Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has _always_ determined the way I vote. People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single-issue thinker, and a single-issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician -- or political philosophy -- is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center. Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put. If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, _anything_ -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your _friend_ no matter what he tells you. If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims. What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about _you_. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him? If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it? If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend -- the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights -- do you want to entrust him with _anything_? If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil -- like "Constitutionalist" -- when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in _jail_? Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician -- or political philosophy -- is really made of. He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun -- but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school -- or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway -- Prussian, maybe - -- and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about? And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about _you_, and it has been, all along. Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man -- and you're not -- what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a _woman_, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have? On the other hand -- or the other party -- should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries? Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue -- health care, international trade -- all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it. And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter. But it isn't true, is it? =================================== L. Neil Smith is the award-winning author of _Bretta Martyn_, _The Probability Broach_, _The Crystal Empire_, _Henry Martyn_, _The Lando Calrissian Adventures_, and _Pallas_. He is also an NRA Life Member and founder of the Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus. ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per month) Matthew Gaylor,1933 E. Dublin-Granville Rd.,#176, Columbus, OH 43229 Archived at http://www.egroups.com/list/fa/ ************************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 09:42:26 -0600 From: "Jean-Francois Avon" Subject: Re: FW: NEWS RELEASE Permit me to make a few comments and debunk the many fallacies Mr. Peter McCrindle said. My comments are included in his text. On Thu, 25 Nov 1999 07:54:15 -0500, Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1 wrote: >Distribution list: >The Hon. Allan Rock, Minister of Justice As far as I know, Mrs Anne McLellan is the minister of Justice and Mr. Rock is dealing with matters of health since more than a year. If it changed, feel free to notify me... >I have long been an advocate for the most rigid possible firearm >legislation in this country. I have been a long time advocate of cherry flavored Life Savers, but so what? The fact that somebody is an advocate of something doesn't mean that the advocated thing is good, right or wise. >It is an issue that has become very >familiar to the electorate since the Ecole Polytechnique massacre (Marc >Lepine) in Montreal all those years ago. This statement, while partly right, does not mention the facts about the issue and bank on the sensationalism of an act commited by a seriously mentally ill person. Doing this ignores the fact that he would probably have used a different mean to reach his ends if firearms would not have been available to him. The madness of the man is blanked-off and the focus is wrongly put on the tool of the crime. But as any sensical and rational individual knows, there are many ways to skin a cat. Pipe bombs could have been used (as demonstrated by the Littleton, Colorado kids). Chemical or biological weapons could have been used. Rape and murder of individual woman could have been done too. How does Mr. McCrindle knows Lepine wouldn't have turned into a serial killer ending up killing more than twelves women? The answer is easy: the writer has NO idea. >Since then, our neighbors to the South have experienced tragic incident >after tragic incident involving crimes committed by firearms which, had >their legislatures been successful in controlling to some measure, would >not have been so readily available. There is not a single shred of evidence for this statement. On the contrary, all studies that were led according to the rules of true scientific studies tend to conclude the opposite of what Mr. McCrindle believe. >Shortly after the Littleton, >Colorado high school massacre, Canada suffered a similar "blemish" in >Alberta. If Mr. McCrindle considers it only as a "blemish", I consider it as a tragedy. But although guns were used, somebody had to pull the trigger. And it is that somebody that is the true causal agent, not the tools he choosed to use. The tragedy did not completely happen in that shoot-out but started long before, with the troubled life of this poor (but evil nevertheless) kid's life. > Other incidents, too numerous to mention here include the >shootings at the Voyageur terminal in Ottawa, etc... Maybe "too numerous" because in fact, they are a rarity and he cannot find enough of them to mention from the top of his head. Maybe he ought to mention the number of people that have somebody attempt to their life using their cars. I know of two close friends that were almost killed voluntarily by somebody else but nobody who was menaced with a gun... >I have written several articles on this subject and have communicated >with activists on both sides of the issue. One prominent fact emerges >and that a good portion of Canadians who oppose Bill C-68 actually cite >portions of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States >(Thomas Jefferson's "...right to bear arms...") as an excuse for NOT >restricting the ownership and use of firearms in Canada. This is, first >and foremost, a very sad comment on the literacy rate of some Canadians >and secondly, it is a myth that groups, such as the Reform Party of >Canada and/or selected members within their pparliamentary caucus, >refuse to clarify and straighten out. Actually, it is Mr. McCrindle that is ill informed. The fact that the Second Amendment is part of the document that is loosely referred to as the "Constitution of the United States of America" has very little relevance. Canada is a country based on Anglo-Saxon Common Law, as is the United States of America (but NOT the "United States" which is ruled by a form of Admiralty Law that is applied to the land, i.e. despotism), Australia and New-Zealand. The so-called "constitution of hte US of A" is based on the inalienable rights recognized to Freeman of commoner status by the A.S.C.L. Theses rights apply here too, regardless of the fact that they are systematically trampled on every day by every level of government. Maybe somebody should suggest Mr. McCrindle to study a bit about the private club we call "the Parliement of Canada" that assumed power (usurped?) after England "de-commissionned" the Roman entity that was Canada and return it to the provinces... I trust you, dear elected officials, to enlighten Mr. McCrindle. Also, suggest him a bit of history, that will do him good. >The result, of course is the >sporadic groundswell of opposition to extremely necessary legislation in >this matter. No rational arguments have been put forward to substanciate this allegation. >With specific regard to the administrative "nightmare" that has become >the earliest stages of Bill C-68's process, I happen to (somewhat >reluctantly) agree with Mr. Breitkreuz but ONLY in the sense that, >instead of having the legislation stricken from the books, the >registration of firearms (and enforcement thereof) should be drastically >improved, revamped and intensified. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Saddam, Idi Amin Dada, and many others said the same. >Immediately following the Littleton massacre, I had intended to do a >piece on what I termed as "Gladiator Mentality" in the U.S. Of course, >the untimely addition of mr. Breitkreuz's original press release on the >gun issue added to my piece in that I was definitely able to put a >Canadian face on the issue. What Mr. McCrindle ridicules as the "gladiator mentality" is in fact a respect for one's life and other's life elevated at the level or moral imperative. The opposite of that is also very clear: the conviction that life is not a value. >I remember writing that instead of merely requiring gun owners to have >their weapons registered, our federal government should actually >legislate that ALL casual firearms (other than for police and military >purposes) be kept in federally sponsored and run repositories throughout >the country where an owner could claim his/her weapon only after having >presented documents proving the reason he was doing so (permits, >licences, etc...). After the period for which he/she would have access >to the weapon, it would have to be returned to the repository from which >it came failing which an arrest warrant would be issued proclaiming the >owner as allegedly being in possession of an illegal firearm. >Until the Canadian electorate can fully come to its senses Which senses? The electorate accepts to have the govt imply to them that they are imbeciles, by handling 55% of the Gross Domestic Product, in effect saying "we know better than you what is good for you and what to do with the result of your work". So, of course, you could expect them to "demand" things that will turn them into even more slavery (like gun control). >and enact much stricter firearm >legislation, there will always be that "Sword of Damocles" hanging over >the electorate's head and no one could accurately predict when or where >the next shooting will come from next. Oh, but no, Mr. McCrindle is wrong here, as history is very clear on that: the shooting will come from the govt itself, on it's own population. THis is what happened in virtually every country that instated stringent gun control. USSR, NAZI Germany, Irak, Iran, Algeria, China, etc. Why should we trust more our politicians than the one that were in thoses countries? >Under the current provisions of Bill C-68 meanwhile, we should rejoice, >rather than condemn it. After all, if the law can prevent even ONE >accidental or intentional shooting, it has fulfilled a good portion of >its "raison d'etre". Mr. McCrindle forgot to put in the balance all of the unintentional deaths that would have been saved by readily available firearms. And THAT is a number way larger than the loss of life under NO regulations at all. >The inconveniences and grumbles cited by Mr. >Breitkreuz and his "gun totin' backwater cronies" are, therefore, >ill-founded Mr. McCrindle did not provide one single rational and reality-backed argument to substantiate his emotional opinion. >and nothing but a nuisance to the respect of the law and the >electorate it is designed to protect and serve. The internal disagreement between the association of chief of police (who endorse the law) and of the street policemen themselves, of which 90% do not approve of it, is proof positive that the last allegation of Mr. McCrindle is unfounded. I appended an article covering this specific topic at the end of this message. >Sincere regards, >Peter McCrindle >Pointe Claire, QC >(in the federal riding of Lachine - Lac-St.-Louis) Jean-Francois Avon Pierrefonds, QC (Pierrefonds-Dollard federal riding) ============================================================== >From http://www.vaxxine.com/scon/isguncon.htm [this article was published in one of the main newspaper of the Toronto area] ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #215 **********************************