Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 07:33:37 -0600 Message-Id: <200003101333.HAA11391@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 #293 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, March 10 2000 Volume 03 : Number 293 In this issue: EDMONTON WEST TOWN HALL MEETING Re: Receiver forgings Clearer thinking... Gas Out Re: wander which of their gun control/safety laws would have stopped THIS senseless violence [none] IS IT WRONG TO WANT FIREARMS FOR PROTECTION [none] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 16:28:44 -0700 From: "BOB LICKACZ" Subject: EDMONTON WEST TOWN HALL MEETING Last night I attended a town hall meeting held in Anne McLelland's riding of Edmonton West. There were about 100 attendees. Of all the people there, I recognized only one firearms owner (NFA member) and only one Reformer. Appearing at the meeting was Howard Sapers, local Liberal MLA, two City of Edmonton councilors, and HRH Annie. The meeting started at 7:15 PM, with questions from four pre-selected panelists. After 8 rather mild questions e.g.."Who won the Stanley Cup in 1954?", the public question period started. The moderator asked that questions asked were to be in sequence i.e.. federal, provincial, and local. This arrangement was not met with much enthusiasm. The first question went to Annie, and it was surprise, surprise, a firearms question. Annie came forth with her best "Culture of Safety" mantra, but did not actually ANSWER the question. The crowd did not pleased with the responce. After two more questions Annie was asked to provide a simple yes or no answer to "Are you in government to represent the wishes and concerns of your constituents?" The fellow then said what I don't want is an answer filled with lawyer-speak. Poor Annie didn't answer with a yes or no, but spouted some classic bafflegab that lasted at least two minutes, but again, did not actually ANSWER the question. Annie got a lot of negative reaction to that answer. Another couple of powder puff questions went to the other politicians, then it was Annie's turn. Guess what, ANOTHER firearms question. (Jesus, I thought the deate was over.) I would like to say that the NFA stacked the meeting in order to ambush the Justice Minister but that simply wasn't the case. In fact for you CFC types reading this the NFA didn't even ask Annie any question. The NFA did not hoot, holler, heckle, cat call, or any other such thing. Annie's non-firearms questions and answers (benefits for homosexuals, child access, definition of marriage) were not received well by the raucous crowd. Annie was called a liar several times. Towards the end of the meeting I moved next to "Mildred", Annie's riding office receptionist. I honestly think Mildred (nice enough lady) was somewhat relieved to see a FRIENDLY face!!!! The meeting deteriorated to the point where the moderator terminated the meeting. If last night's meeting is any indication, Annie's popularity is sinking as fast as the CFC Titanic. If I were Annie, I don't think I would wear my good clothes to the next meeting if indeed she will have another one, the tar and feathers will be a bitch to clean. Bob Lickacz of the most gentlemanly, docile, refined and cultured NFA Edmonton ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 19:54:31 -0600 From: "Peter Kearns" Subject: Re: Receiver forgings Patrick Dubois wrote: > > I was surfing the net the other day and came across a couple of AR15 > lower receiver forgings. They are not milled or finished in any manner. ...what would be the legal standing on these forgings? Can they be > bought in Canada? Does anyone know where they could be found in Canada? > Peter Kearns wrote: The forgings you describe are just that. They are NOT receivers or frames of firearms because essentially no machine work has been carreied out so they can function or be assembled with any firearms parts. They can be bought as can any other forging.... So long as you have the money and you can find them.... There is the catch.... I know of none available in Canada. (They would make magnificent paperweights, and irritate the authorities as well!) regards, Peter Kearns "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the issue!" Benjamin Franklin 1759 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 13:34:43 -0700 From: Barry Snow Subject: Clearer thinking... I've just finished reading the latest Digest in which we talk about = Colorado and their latest initiative on Packing Illegal Guns-Pack To Go = To Prison! We need to be really clear about articles like this because = it can become a double edged sword. What happens in two years, if and = when the current gun legislation applies and we, the non compliant gun = owners, keep our guns without complying. Are we now the same people that = sho... snip This is referring to Project Exile, a brainchild of the NRA, which called for strict enforcement Federal US statutes. In particular, the federal law that prohibits a felon from possessing a firearm. The NRA has provided funding for billboard adverts telling felons that if they pack, they do time in the federal pen. The relevance of this, to Canada, is that before 1995 we already had more than enough laws. They have just never been enforced against criminals. More often used as a plea bargaining trade. - ---- re: getting silent majority involved. This is a group that is deliberately not attracting attention. Many I know won't even write a letter for fear or being targeted by law enforcement. Ones who three years ago never applied for an FAC thinking that they could remain invisible but still hunt, buy hunting or shooting magazines, own green certificate handguns, shoot gophers on their own land, buy ammo, etc. One old boy at the trap club told me late last summer to not worry cause that (C-68) will never go through. Lots of collectors who say, I dont hunt or even shoot much, how would they even know I exist? How about the 92 year old that declared "by gad I aint telling them bastards about my guns!" then piled them in his car and drove down to North Dakota and mailed them to his kid in Arizona? You would be surprized to know how many people over 68 are losing sleep about what they should do? Been law abiding all their lives but are now torn about what to do. Still think they have three years to decide. I just dont think that these citizens are going join the parade. It will work like the Civil Disobedient of Trudeau's day. Every pot user in Canada was supposed to go to the police station at 10 o'clock on some pre-appointed day and light up. They either all slept in or lit up and went fishing. Maybe one guy showed up in Vancouver but an overall poor turnout. Keep thinking, keep up the good fight Barry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 17:20:06 -0800 (PST) From: Brodie Otway Manomano Subject: Gas Out Hello, sorry to get off topic, but I thought everyone should know about the planned gas-out. To protest the high prices no one should buy gas from april fifth to the seventh. Sorry again for being off topic. Brodie Otway ===== e-mail: brodie_o@yahoo.com We shall overcome C-68 "Save a tree, kill a beaver" icq 5657070 message me please (Moderator comment, this is off topic and will be the only reference to the gas out. IRP) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 02:15:54 From: mike Subject: Re: wander which of their gun control/safety laws would have stopped THIS senseless violence I don't think this is fair, I have a little hammer [<10oz] that I only use for tacking up targets. I think my 'target hammer' should be exempt from this law. But I think sledge hammers should be banned too, anyone who really needs a 12lb sledge, or even worse one of those sharp edged splitting mauls should have to have a license and a permit and have it registered. Naw that's ridiculous, why would they want to put numbers on tools? Good thing we live in a free country where this could never happen eh? .......somewhere over the rainbow........ At 19:40 09/03/00 -0500, you wrote: >A Shrewsberry Mass. psychiatrist who specialized in criminal psychology died >after being pushed down the stairs of her home and beaten with a HAMMER. - >allegedly by her 16 yr old daughter. >It's time to ban assault hammers. the only purpose for a hammer is to hit things. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 21:28:29 -0600 From: "Alan Harper" Subject: [none] Subject: Re: Lazuras Rises from the dead ! Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 22:24:22 -0500 > First my puter gave it up in later Dec. 99, then ; > Had a massive heart attack, brought on by that fuggen Hong Kong Flue. > Wound up in Surrey Memorial Hospital, and am still rehabbing now. Nice to hear from you again, Rod. I was wondering where you got to. Bye. Al. SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM If you seek peace, prepare for war ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 20:25:39 -0800 (PST) From: Joe B Subject: IS IT WRONG TO WANT FIREARMS FOR PROTECTION WHY ARE WE SO AFRAID TO SAY - AND ARGUE THE MERITS OF THE FACT - THAT SOME OF US JUST WANT A FIREARM FOR OUR OWN PROTECTION? Sender: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Reply-To: cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca What would you do if a person came into a McDonalds restaurant where you were eating [your hamburger] - with your children present - and this "nut case" started shooting, stabbing or otherwise killing people around you? What protection would you have - wait for the police? Hell, you're not even supposed to have pepper-spray unless it's to be used against an animal. In such a case however, I am sure that you could easily argue that some in this world are more close to animals than human beings? Here is another point: Where is the insight to put all your eggs in one basket - I.e., Expecting the police to look after all of us - no problem (?) Just the math alone: How many of us are there? How many police officers are there - (not enough)? WHAT HAPPENED TO BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS - AND YES, PERHAPS TAKING SOME OWNERSHIP IN PROTECTING YOURSELF. AND, WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT - SHOULD WE APOLOGIZE FOR WANTING TO BE RESPONSIBLE - I THINK NOT! HOW ABOUT THE BOY SCOUT MOTTO - "ALWAYS (TRY TO) BE PREPARED". What is so wrong if some of the general public, - - who wish to accept the responsibility; - - and are willing to pay the cost themselves to be trained and licensed (by a police force or other suitable training institutiion) - - and freely accept to being held accountable for their future actions once "qualified" want to carry a concealed weapon. What would happen if a retired police officer was in that McDonalds I mention; and, he had a concealed weapon? DO YOU THINK YOU MIGHT HAVE A BETTER CHANCE OF SURVIVAL. Can we truly trust the police to be there all the time - - say at night - when a prowler is in our home. Hell, we can't even trust them to get into an OC Transpo bus station - in daylight hours - without having to wait two hours for floor plans. Is it wrong to say "We have a right to protect ourselves"? Is it wrong to say "If we so choose , we want to arm ourselves in support of protecting ourselves and our loved ones"? Is it so wrong to say: "We are responsible, caring adults and accept the extra responsibility of having firearms; properly storing and transporting firearms; and, if we so choose, carrying a concealed weapon so that we might protect ourselves and in so doing, may SAVE LIVES. WHY DO POLICE HAVE GUNS (AND PEPPER-SPRAY) - TO PROTECT THEMSELVES - TO PROTECT OTHERS - PERHAPS, "SAVE A LIFE". I think it is high time we stand up and say, "If we choose to buy or want firearms for our own protection, what is wrong with that". We have an FAC (or whatever license); we have proven that we are responsible and will accept being held accountable for our actions - if not, in a truly free and democratic country, we would choose not buy a firearm - that should be enough. IS THIS A GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE "OR" IS THIS A PEOPLE BEING RUN BY A GOVERNMENT. WE NEED MORE - "POWER TO THE PEOPLE" - POWER TO THE REAL PEOPLE. NOT GOVERNMENT OR GOVERNMENT ENFORCERS. REAL PEOPLE WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE AND WILLING TO STAND UP FOR WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN. THEIR PRINCIPLES, THEIR CONCERNS, STAND-UP TO THEIR FEARS AND RESPONSIBLY DEAL WITH THE JOB OF LIVING. AND ABOVE ALL, PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT AFRAID TO TAKE A STAND; AND, ARE READY TO BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS. - - WE ARE RESPONSIBLE - - GOVERNMENT SHOULD TAKE ON MORE OF THE RESPONSIBILITY OF CARING FOR CHILDREN, THE SICK, THE ELDERLY AND OTHERS THAT ARE NOT ABLE TO LOOK AFTER THEMSELVES. LESS GOVERNMENT "IS" GOOD GOVERNMENT. IT SHOWS THAT THE PEOPLE CAN GOVERN THEMSELVES, RESPONSIBLY. EVERY PARENT HAS TO AT SOME POINT - EASE UP ON THOSE APRON STRINGS. DEAR LIBERAL GOVERNMENT: NOT EVERYONE NEEDS, OR WANTS TO BE "TAKEN CARE OF" AS THOUGH THEY CANNOT CARE FOR THEMSELVES OR THEIR LOVED ONES - OR FOR THAT MATTER - THEIR OWN FELLOW CITIZENS!!! I WONDER HOW MANY WOULD HAVE DIED IF LAW ABIDING CITIZENS WERE GIVEN THE OPTION OF PROTECTING THEMSELVES AND, IF THEY SO DESIRED, ARMING THEMSELVES IN THE INTERESTS OF SELF-PROTECTION, I WONDER WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IN OTTAWA AT THE OC TRANSPO BUILDING - LESS KILLINGS PERHAPS OR IF ONE WOMEN OUT OF THE FOURTEEN (14) WHO DIED AT THE POLY TECHNIC INCIDENT IN MONTREAL HAD A FIREARM IN HER PURSE. LETS ALL GET TOGETHER AND DO THE RIGHT THING. THOSE WHO CLAIM WE NEED GUNS TO HUNT DUCKS AND SHOOT HOLES IN PAPER WHILE THE BULLET RIDDLED BODIES OF INNOCENT PEOPLE LIE IN A BUS STATION OR A MONTREAL SCHOOL SHOULD ALSO SEE THE REALITY - IT IS NOT ALL FOR TARGET PRACTICE AND SHOOTING ANIMALS. GUNS ARE ONE OF THE ULTIMATE FORMS OF "SELF PRESERVATION" AND PROTECTION. IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO BUY, HAVE A GUN - SO BE IT. THAT IS YOUR CHOICE IN A FREE SOCIETY. IT'S OKAY TO DISAGREE AND BE DIFFERENT. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 06:14:45 From: "Bruce L. Jones" (by way of mike) Subject: [none] ) Subject: Re: At least one Canadian hoplophile can think. Nancy wrote: > > At least one Canadian hoplophile can think. If you find one in the good ol' > U. S. of A., let me know. Sender: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Reply-To: cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca > It's not guns we must control > March 2, 2000 > By MICHAEL COREN > Sun Media > I hate guns. They terrify me. I have never owned one and never will. I have Remember this??? Well, I got carried away today at lunch and dropped this to the editor. I thought some of you might use one or two of the points elsewhere so this is shared in that spirit. See below ... - -- Bruce L. Jones The Desert Hostage The Mojave Desert - The Geographic Center of Nowhere ****************************************************************************** UNOFFICIAL 9 March 2000 To: editor@sunpub.com To whomever it may concern: I am writing with regard to the article by Michael Coren dated March 2, 2000 and titled "It's Not Guns We Must Control". By way of introduction I would like to share that in my official position I am regarded as one of the world's foremost authorities on weapons of all kinds, their uses, and the laws governing them. I have spent a lifetime in study and in the acquisition of this knowledge. Therefore, it is without trepidation that I state that this article, with the exception of the first paragraph, is absolutely correct. I will not inundate you with reams of facts. Suffice it to say that those facts, figures and statistics do, indeed, exist. Instead I will discuss my personal expert knowledge. I would like to briefly comment on that first paragraph. In it, Mr. Coren states, "I hate guns. They terrify me. I have never owned one and never will. I have little sympathy for the gun culture or the gun lobby. Both seem crass and crude. If I had my way, guns would not exist." Perhaps one could take the time to gently inform Mr. Coren of the baseless nature of his stated fear and loathing and the equally absolute misunderstanding he has of the nature, purpose and use of guns; actually weapons. Mr. Coren's current feelings actually serve to do nothing less sinister than supporting murders, kidnappers, rapists and other violent felons. He finishes this paragraph with the equally accurate, ". . . we do not live in a perfect world and I am prepared to admit that reality sometimes stings." I will now illustrate how this also applies to his fear - hoplophobia - concerning "guns". It is a fact as equally known as those Mr. Coren states in his article that since the dawn of pre-human history, humankind has used violence for individual gain. Even other present day primates use violence; including murder, rape and protection rackets, to align and codify power structures in their societies. Primitive man (really pre-man) used crude manual power, just as modern apes do, to wield his power. The power and influence went to the biggest biceps and greatest aggression. Protection from this violence was only provided by equally strong and aggressive young males. This condition continued unabated throughout the entire human history of the use and parallel development of society and weapons. Humankind went from using rocks and sticks, to sharpened sticks, to stone and flaked flint edges, to metal tipped spears and finally, swords. All of these things had one characteristic in common. They were all only as effective as the youthful strength and aggression of their users. Again, protection from their effects were also only provided by an equivalent degree of strength and aggressiveness. All of human history is one long litany of one aggressor conquering another less successful aggressor. Usually, the less successful aggressor was eventually disarmed of their weapons and then enslaved and/or slaughtered (or, in some cases, both). Our own history in the West, and especially the common history of both the United States and Canada, has one example after another of an aggressive power wielder overpowering and disarming the wider population for the purpose of controlling them. This history is what led the developers of the Constitutional structure of the U.S. to sanctify the forbidden nature of disarmament; to ultimately guarantee the individual freedom of each person, regardless of any government that may ever exist. Those who understand and support this concept are the lovers of free men. It has little to do with actual "guns". Guns are only the latest in a long line of weapons used to ensure the freedom of their owners. To understand this more fully, it is only necessary to examine the world's past great societies. Without an exception that comes to mind, every glorious flowering of human culture and science has occurred under the protective umbrella of the most powerful military machines of their respective day. From the ancient flowers of Crete, Babylon, China and Japan to Greece and Rome, to the more modern contributions of the United Kingdom, France and the United States, each has achieved great strides in medicine, the arts and science. This was made possible because the creators were protected; protected by aggressive men with weapons. It is equally easy to see how each society declined when those same weapons and aggression lost favor with their respective - albeit misguided - intelligentsia. Now, we are debating this issue of weapons, so often debated throughout history. When it was first invented, the crossbow was as feared and despised as guns are today by the meek. Then, as now, they would rather try to ban them than understand and use them. The great advantage today is that there is simply no more effective tool any single citizen can use to protect his own life, or that of his family or property than a gun. The invention of guns forever removed the possession of power from only the young, physically strong males. Meeker men, women and older people can now have as much power at their disposal to provide for their own protection as any young, strong thug, thus making a personally owned gun the hallmark of individual freedom and safety. Some would-be banners of this hallmark of personal safety have attempted to use trumped up studies with cooked data to show - falsely - that the owner of a weapon is more likely to be injured than an attacker. This is patently absurd in-and-of itself. My nearly forty years of personal experience with tens of thousands of guns and their users have absolutely demonstrated the fallacy of that as utter nonsense. Overwhelmingly, an individual, especially a woman or elderly person, is remarkably safer if they own - and especially if they carry with them at all times - a gun for personal protection. For example, crimes against women would all but cease overnight if all women were so armed. The only loss would be to the personal safety of rapists and murderers. The evidence is overwhelming that there would be a lot less crime if more citizens were armed. The media, for their part, has contributed little to this issue but manufactured hysteria. There is a current feeding frenzy in both our respective countries concerning the drama of violence that far overshadows the actual import of the events. The citizenry, for their part, encourage this circus with their rapt attention to the over-dramatization of it. Politicians have played on this hysteria to make an issue they could appear to "fight" for, making themselves champions against a hugely mis-perceived issue. Absent this manufactured issue of "gun violence", there would be little or nothing to distinguish between them, all of it bland. Most of them merely regurgitate what appears in print, finding little incentive or courage to discover actual facts. The facts are as plain and simple as the examples in Mr. Coren's article. Millions of Americans living in rural areas and in the Western cities have always known where their best protection was. It is in their own hands, if the hands are holding a gun. The murders so sensationalized in the media are rare except among violence-prone youths. That is a group so insular that it will not touch most lives. The biggest concern to citizens should be protecting themselves against professional thieves and other criminals. The facts do show that millions of Americans do just that every year using their own personally owned guns, about two and a half million times a year. This hugely overshadows the comparatively minuscule thirteen thousand murders each year committed with guns (and most of them are criminals killing other criminals). The wider offices of the United States Government, for their part, know exactly what the truth is, but are not allowed to publicize or pursue it by the politics and policies of the current administration. For a really enlightening view of the wider issue, I would advise everyone to read a report published by the United States Senate in February of 1982, titled "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms; Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary; United States Senate; Ninety-Seventh Congress; Second Session." It was and remains a scholarly study of the history and facts of the issue. Mr. Coren, for all his good intentions, has fallen into the same propagandist's trap as the politicians and others. His fears are baseless and misguided, manufactured by a long history of hysterical journalism. He should, if he wished to make himself and his surroundings safe from violence, acquired his first gun and learn how to use it responsibly as millions of Americans have. Then he too would perhaps begin to understand that there is no such thing as a "gun lobby". There is a lobby alright, but it is a lobby for the continuing safety and freedom of our citizens. Guns are only the current tool to achieve and assure that end. Regards, Bruce L. Jones Program Manager Infantry Weapons U.S. Marine Corps - Pacific Theater ******** end ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #293 **********************************