From: Cdn-Firearms Digest [owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca] Sent: Saturday, 09 February, 2002 21:04 To: cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V4 #532 Cdn-Firearms Digest Saturday, February 9 2002 Volume 04 : Number 532 In this issue: home invasion repulsed Re: OPP monitoring of telecommunications Outsourcing at minimum wage ? Re: UNKNOWN Re: The cost of Bill C-68 Re: unknown Re: unknown Re: Lawyers six times more likely to kill themselves Re: Subject: Brownshirts Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V4 #528 Registreing New Firearms Oops! Re: Alan Carlos. Of the Yukon "simple" Re: BRILLIANT MOVE, McCOSHAM Re: BRILLIANT MOVE, McCOSHAM Re: unknown A SUGGESTION ON REGISTERING YOUR FIREARMS Re: Firearms Registry Article Hitlers oath, 'K' et al Clayton Ruby Wanted Used Handguns RE: communication? Re: Message to an ignorant lout. Government Computer Security??? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 21:29:31 -0600 From: "Trigger Mortis" Subject: home invasion repulsed >Let me see if I have this right... A man breaks into this woman's house >through a >window, she shoots him, he flees, police arrive, she's arrested and charged >with >firearms offenses, he's treated for wounds and released from the hospital >with no >charges? Oh yeah I forgot, this is Kanada. >~Richard. ================ Don't assume the paper's version is correct. The papers are notorious for inaccurate reporting. Bye. Al. SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 21:29:34 -0600 From: "Trigger Mortis" Subject: Re: OPP monitoring of telecommunications >Last month a posting was made concerning changing of range operators in >Ontario and the taping of conversations with Range Inspectors. >My name wasn't mentioned but I was referred to as the former range >operator and that I had taped conversations with the CFO and inspectors. I >had a call at work from my wife that OPP Det. Sergeant Wally Baumann wished >to speak to me. I contacted Det. Sergeant Baumann. He informed me that the >OPP monitors all telecommunications for keywords like police. He used the >ruse that there were allegations on the Internet that I had taped a >conversation between one of his Range Inspectors and myself and he was just >making me aware of that. He wanted to know if I was aware of the >information >on the Internet. I let him know I was aware that there was something on the >Internet. His tone changed. He asked me if I knew that taping >telecommunications was illegal. I informed him I knew it was not illegal to >tape my own conversations and that I had spoken with police and a lawyer >before doing so. > >Further on in our conversation I told him I was calling his bluff and to >charge me if taping telecommunications was illegal. Ultimately he claimed >he >never said it was. > >Fortunately I had my tape recorder at work that day on an unrelated matter. >I got this conversation on tape. > >For our OPP monitors, you can inform Det. Sergeant Baumann that, if he >doesn >'t know already, a complaint has been made by me concerning his conduct. >You can also inform him which Newspapers I have sent letters to concerning >your monitoring and my conversation with the above named officer. > >Howard Magda > >Moderator: Good work Howard. =============== Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! - - Thanks for the best laugh I have had all week, Howard. - - ROTFLMAO - - Bye. Al. - - SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 21:29:35 -0600 From: "Karl Schrader" Subject: Outsourcing at minimum wage ? How can it be cheaper to outsource the registration scheme? Any contractor will have to make a profit. Minimum wage to unreliable employees? Are civil servants overpaid and still unable to run a scheme like this? It boggles the mind. Moderator: Civil servants are not overpaid if they actually meet the qualifications specified. Affirmative hiring has given us over paid , under qualified employees. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 21:29:39 -0600 From: "Trigger Mortis" Subject: Re: UNKNOWN > > > I have been following the discussion about putting 'UNKNOWN' on > > > the registration forms. How about if one was to put 'NOT SURE' > > > instead and let a verifier come, MAKE sure and sign it ? > > You're splitting hairs there. >Not really. I was going to suggest using 'NOT SURE' myself. > > "unknown" is a pretty definite statement on your part, wheras "not > > sure" is, well, not sure. >Exactly. >For example, your .270 rifle may have "Browning" stamped on the barrel >but in reality it may have been manufactured but a company in Japan. >Using "Unknown" is making the claim that the real information is truly >not known. >If the feds wanted to prosecute you, they would only have to prove that >it is a well known fact. >Using 'NOT SURE' on the hand is merely stating that you *yourself* are >not sure who manufacturered it. The feds would have to prove that *you* >knew otherwise. A much tougher task. > > You've just relieved them of a house call by a verifier. >Actually the way it will probably work is that you have to take your >firearms to the verifier, not the other way around. =============== I have to take my firearms to the verifier?????????? - - Sorry, I am not taking them anywhere! If they want to see the information, they are coming to my place to see it. - - Bye. Al. - - SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 21:47:12 -0600 From: Jim Powlesland Subject: Re: The cost of Bill C-68 On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Alfred Hovdestad wrote: > In other words, it would have been cheaper for Ottawa to buy all of > the firearms in Canada than to register them. Yikes! Don't give them any ideas! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 21:47:13 -0600 From: "Trigger Mortis" Subject: Re: unknown >unverified >not sure >not indicated >I don't know >I'm not sure >not shown >any other good alternative answers? ============= Buggered if I know. Bye. Al. alan__harper@cogeco.ca SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 21:47:13 -0600 From: Jim Powlesland Subject: Re: unknown On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, MJ wrote: > unverified > not sure > not indicated > I don't know > I'm not sure > not shown > any other good alternative answers? uncertain indeterminate indefinite ambiguous indistinct problematical questionable dubious Moderator: multiple choice a) rifle b)handgun c)single shot d) multiple shot e) long barrel F) short barrel ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 21:47:12 -0600 From: Jim Powlesland Subject: Re: Lawyers six times more likely to kill themselves > National Post, National ed. > Canada, Wednesday, August 15, 2001, p. A09 > Lawyers at risk for depression, addiction: Six times more likely to > kill themselves There is hope yet for Clayton Ruby. Moderator: The NFA is again at fault. Our Richard Fritze has been known to drive Crown Prosecutors to drink! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 21:47:10 -0600 From: Jim Powlesland Subject: Re: Subject: Brownshirts I Sender: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Reply-To: cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Rick Lowe wrote: > And the sooner we realize that we aren't going to win the fight > against the Firearms Act without some support from the general > public, Screw the public. The only way the public is going to turn against the Firearms Act is through Liberal spending, not anything they hear from the horrible "gun lobby". When the bill goes over, say, two billion the sheep will start bleating. Until then the only way to damage the Firearms Act is through the courts. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 21:47:14 -0600 From: wrpa Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V4 #528 >From: wrpa >Subject: disarmament doesn't work > >Subject: disarmament doesn't work . >Jason Hayes wrote: >"Although I do not advocate persons creating their own firearms, >for obvious legal reasons" . >What obvious legal reasons? >What law prevents you from building your own gun? . >As far as I know (correct me if i'm wrong) there is no Canadian >law prohibiting the manufacture of a firearm by an individual. > >Moderator: one problem would be deciding at what point in manufacture it >becomes a firearm that requires registration. . That is a minor problem. I would say before it is capable of chambering a round. There should be no barrel available that can be substituted. . It may take quite a while before the registrar issues a certificate. It would probably require an inspection by the RCMP forensic lab. Other than delays due to the registrar or the RCMP lab I can't see any real problems. Comments anyone. . Mr Moderator, where are my blank lines going. I hope you are not hoarding them. I put them in to seperate sections to aid in clarity. I'm currently trying adding a period on blank lines. Moderator: The server is eating the blank lines when submissions first pass through it. Trying to save space I believe. I have been tryig to replace them as time permits. Very labor intensive and time consuming. Lately I have been doubly busy. The list owner is aware of the problem though. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 23:19:36 -0600 From: Edward Hudson Subject: Registreing New Firearms Dear Mr Mills, Re: Registering Newly Manufactured Firearms I concede that you obviously have a better understanding of the finer points of the firearm registration requirements than I because I am not planning to submit to registration. The four firearms that I purchased from a gun shop came with registration certificates (actually were mailed out the following week). I destroyed those registration certicates. Open resistance is the simplest response to bad law. Sincerely, Eduardo Bruce Mills wrote: > Edward Hudson wrote: > > > > Mr Moderator, > > Re: a firearm that requires registration > > Registration is not required until next January first. > > And registration will not become effective then unless we > > submit to registration. > > I, for one, will never submit to registration. > > Sincerely, > > Eduardo > > > Moderator: one problem would be deciding at what point in > > > manufacture it becomes a firearm that requires registration. > > If you read this again carefully, Gordon is talking about > manufacturing a new firearm. > > Only those already in your possession do not require to be registered > until Dec 31, 2002. Since you do not already possess imported or > newly manufactured firearms, they must be registered, just as you > would have to register a firearm you buy from someone else. > > Bruce > Hamilton > Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 23:31:50 -0600 From: wrpa Subject: Oops! Re: Alan Carlos. Of the Yukon "simple" I Mike Hargreaves wrote: "Storage is just that! Locked away, when you are away, so no thieving bugger can take them away! simple. The exact letter of the law is quite simple, no loaded guns can be stored in your safe!" . Unfortunately when Mike said "no loaded guns can be stored in your safe!" I thought he was saying Alan Carlos WAS storing his loaded guns at the time. . God I hate it when I go to so much effort in arguing a point then find out that my position is the same as the person I'm arguing against. Well I gess I'm going to have to be more careful when reading submissions in the future. . Sorry Mike. At least you know my opinion on the matter. . Rudy Sender: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Reply-To: cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 23:31:51 -0600 From: "Rob Johnson" Subject: Re: BRILLIANT MOVE, McCOSHAM John Stevens wrote > >I own guns and one of them big ol' motorcicles. > >Is there no help for the widow's son? > >You don't suppose we could start a rumour that Wendy rides a harley. Naw, I don't suppose. Seems to me I heard Wendy rides a harlot ;) RJ _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 23:32:07 -0600 From: Don Clarke Subject: Re: BRILLIANT MOVE, McCOSHAM "John E. Stevens" wrote: snip > You don't suppose we could start a > rumour that Wendy rides a harley. Only if you want to ruin Harleys reputation!!! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 00:08:38 -0600 From: "Keith P. de Solla" Subject: Re: On Friday 08 February 2002 11:57, you wrote: > "e.m. acount" said: > > I believe the OPP dropped the milk-man uniform at least two years ago. > > And now they're dressed in the dreaded black? I still don't accept your > claim that most police forces in Canada are now uniformed in black. > Convince me I'm wrong and you're right. Who cares what colour they wear. Its their actions we should be concerned about. > On second thought, don't bother; the color of uniform they wear is only > relevant > to how high their annual dry cleaning bill is, not whether they perform > > their obs within the law or outside the law. exactly. When the OPP switched to state-trooper type hats (makes more sense in the hot sun), there were complaints that it made them look too much like American state troopers. Huh? So what? What's wrong with that? Besides its basically the same hat that the Mounties use with their traditional uniforms. Moderator: a policeman with a hat , qualifying him as being in uniform, is a rarity these days! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 00:08:37 -0600 From: "Keith P. de Solla" Subject: unknown On Friday 08 February 2002 11:57, you wrote: > unverified > not sure > not indicated > I don't know > I'm not sure > not shown > any other good alternative answers? How about "see attached" and enclose photos of the firearm in question - let them figure it out. Just be sure you don't accidently enclose photos from 2 different firearms - that might cause confusion. :-) - -- Keith P. de Sollakdesolla@shield.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 00:08:39 -0600 From: Sorensens Subject: A SUGGESTION ON REGISTERING YOUR FIREARMS T Sender: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Reply-To: cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca A SUGGESTION ON REGISTERING YOUR FIREARMS A LETTER LIKE THIS, RATHER THAN FILLING IN THEIR FORM... December, 2002 I understand the several firearms I have must be registered and some re-registered by this year's end. I have a problem in that I am not qualified to verify these firearms. As the law is written, if there is an error in my registration, I am criminally liable for that error, regardless of who made the error. With that fact in mind, I feel if a government approved verifier made a mistake, I would fare better in a court of law, than if I made a mistake. Therefore please contact me and arrange for a verifier to inspect, verify, and submit the required information to the registry. I am unable to supply the information over the phone. As some of the firearms are restricted and prohibited, the verifier will need to make an appointment and come to my residence to do this work. It probably will not take longer than a day to do it. Yours truly, name... phone # and address... send it registered mail AND keep a copy for proof you have attempted to abide by the law. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 00:08:39 -0600 From: "Keith P. de Solla" Subject: Re: Firearms Registry Article On Friday 08 February 2002 12:44, you wrote: > On Tue, 5 Feb 2002 rc_ontarget@canada.com wrote: > > http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0CGC/n22_v24/20771966/p1/article.jhtml > > > > I know it's a dated article (June 8/98), but it does provide some > > information on the technical points of the system > > What I found most disturbing is "The heart of the system is an HPD > 9000-class server using Oracle 7 with Pentium II workstations running on > a Windows NT 4 platform." > I can't imagine a more insecure OS than Windows NT. Hackers have > probably been installing backdoor trojans on their CFC's PCs since 1998. The only thing more insecure than WinNT is Win95 or Win98. The feds should be flogged publically for even thinking about using a microsoft product for anything remotely approaching a security concern. - -- Keith P. de Sollakdesolla@shield.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 15:47:40 -0600 From: "A Engel" Subject: Hitlers oath, 'K' et al I would like to thank the very anonymous "e m account" for his prompt rejoinder to my previous posting. He has perfectly demonstrated exactly what it is that makes the credibility of firearms owners so difficult to establish. '.....Are you asking for clarification, or are you just proud that you don't understand?....' The reason for the first part of "accounts" above sentence is a mystery to me. If I needed clarification of Mr. Mills original comment, I would have asked Mr. Mills in private email for it. The second part of "accounts" statement is exactly the kind of snide remark that I was referring to in my yesterdays posting. These are the type of non-constructive, off-putting statements that pull down our credibility and integrity as a group to those reading us here to learn. '....If I were writing a letter to MacLean's on Canadian shooters, I agree that an objective and inoffensive letter should be my goal. But, this isn't MacLean's....' No... this isn't Macleans. Does that mean that it is alright to be non-objective and offensive here? Is being that way here somehow constructive to our cause? I don't think so. Look at the oppositions presence on the internet: http://www.guncontrol.ca. and see for yourself what a professional looking and as yet successful campaign looks like. They don't waste any space or credibility calling us or anyone else names. They avoid snide and racist remarks. They DO NOT air their laundry in public. They are focussed. They simply and professionally present their 'facts', incorrect and misleading as some of those are. We should and MUST start to do as well.... here and wherever we are seen in public...100 percent of the time. 'Nuff said... On a much happier note.... I need to say that this morning when I opened my email proggy, I thought at first I was being mailbombed. Turned out that a good number of people agree with the comments I made and wished to tell me personally. I thank those of you who took the time and trouble to write to me.... Andy ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 21:03:33 -0600 From: "Ron McCutcheon" Subject: Clayton Ruby >Clayton Ruby, the lawyer darling of the cookier group opens his mouth again. Any sensible person who lives in Toronto, or probably in all of Southern Ontario, knows all about Clayton Ruby. Ron McCutcheon P. Eng ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 21:03:29 -0600 From: "Philip Weber" Subject: Wanted Used Handguns I'm looking for the following used handguns. .357 mag S+W 6" Revolver 9mm semiauto at least 105mm barrel .357 mag Desert Eagle Please email me at philipw@mercuryspeed.com Thank you ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 21:03:31 -0600 From: MJ Subject: RE: communication? Hey Ace, did ya miss the point? It was not to justify the boondoggle. I think everyone on this forum knows it's a waste of money. The point is that most Canadians care more about holiday gift wrap than gun control. Outside of this forum nobody cares. The comparison simply illustrates how $600 million can appear important or trivial depending on whether it's communicated as a total or percapita. We may consider it important, at least 77% of Canada considers it trivial. And I doubt if all 7 million firearm owners consider it important either. MJ MJ wrote: >Gun control has cost the average Canadian family about $50 over the past >six years. >Most families spent more on holiday gift wrap, and consider gun control a >bargain. challenger@agt.net wrote: Gun control would be a bargain if the legislation did what it was proported to do. It doesn't and is a waste of $50.00 per Canadian The 600 million dollar cost of the firearms control program is wasted money, period. ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 21:03:32 -0600 From: "e.m. acount" Subject: Re: Message to an ignorant lout. "A Engel" : >Subject: Message to an ignorant lout. An odd choice of subject considering the message you were trying to convey. >It's a pity Mr Kearns, who does such excellent work in the courts, doesn't >have the good sense to hire a copy-writer who knows that snide remarks >based on name- >calling are not 'trifles' and undo most of the good done when he wins cases >in the courts... Why has this sudden campaign to sanitize the speech of CFD contributors come from? Did I miss a National Post 3-part expose on gun-owner potty-mouths? You people really need to give your head a shake and identify a reality-based set of priorities. Give me 15 seconds on Google, and I can find you a dozen webpages operated by our American counterparts explaining how to turn the carcasses of ATF agents into pig-feed, or the equivalent. Swearing and name-calling doesn't even rank. This doesn't hurt them a bit, and they are too on the ball to waste their time attacking each other over it. Also, accepting for the purpose of argument that what you write above is true, and performing simple arithmetic, when Peter's dirty talk undoes 'most of the good done,' we are still left with a small surplus of good. I would submit that this is still a greater benefit than is received from the many people that use nice words but do absolutely nothing productive to promote gun rights. Moderator: Enough Gentlemen. Please take this private or continue it on the chat. Everyone has had a chance to stress their opinion at least once here. Thank You for your cooperation. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 21:03:33 -0600 From: Rick Lowe Subject: Government Computer Security??? Jim Powlesland said: > What I found most disturbing is "The heart of the system is an HPD > 9000-class server using Oracle 7 with Pentium II workstations running on > a Windows NT 4 platform." > I can't imagine a more insecure OS than Windows NT. Hackers have > probably been installing backdoor trojans on their CFC's PCs since 1998. Well, Microsoft computer security has certainly never been the best, and I think they have finally taken it seriously with their announcement just this week that they are suspending all development to turn their attention to a 30 day "bug hunt". However, while Microsoft is not the sterling example of secure networking, those NT 4.0 workstations you mentioned CAN be properly configured as a C2 compliant system. That isn't the highest TCSEC classification, of course, but it is pretty damned good. Most network admins would not want the headache of maintaining C2 compliance on ANY platform - for the simple reason most people don't need that level and high levels of security inevitably impair productivity. Microsoft operating systems second biggest security flaws open up when they connect to the internet using products like Internet Explorer and Outlook. Recent security surveys, done I believe by Gartner Group, found that less than 10% of Windows based networks of any flavour were properly patched to the latest available level of protection. So you get into an area where the laziness or incompetence of network administrators is as much if not more of a problem than the original security holes. I would like to think that EDS Systemshouse is not incorporating web browsing and emailing into their firearms database - can't imagine that requirement, particularly when they are apparent piggybacking this system on CPIC. I would also expect them to be at least smart enough to be using third party security schemes, firewalls, proxy servers, etc. However, "smart" brings us to the greatest security threat to all networking operating systems, no matter what the flavour. Cudgeling my memory again, I believe that it was also Gartner Group who reported that 87% of all network security violations were INSIDE intrusions - committed by valid users with access to the network. So the major consideration - particularly if one assumes the network will not have lax Internet access - is not the Operating System of choice but rather how the users and resources are managed. That's relevant because in view of where most computer network violations come from, we have to ask ourselves how well the government administers their computer systems, particularly against the most dangerous threat of network abuse by valid users (ie government employees). Well, I don't know much about the Feds gun/owner network, but I do know a little about another Federal network belonging to the military out at CFB Suffield. Suffield, mostly known for hosting BATUS, still has a very much alive and functioning DRES (Defense Research Establishment Suffield). This is where Canada worked on chemical warfare development from the time of WWII and beyond. They are still dealing with some very nasty stuff out there, much of it still very hush-hush, and there are lots of military personnel there - and civilians as well - with very high security clearances. So out at CFB Suffield they have an NT based network, requiring the usual user name and password to access, used by assorted support resources, apparently adminstered by one IT "expert" supervising a collection of Canadian Forces wogs there for user support. Now here's the best part: EVERYBODY'S password on that NT system is either "wordpass" or "password". The rational given by IT to users is that if they don't do this, people forget their passwords and cause IT annoyance when they phone for help. Think about that for a moment. With that common knowledge, you can log on to the computer network as any valid user. And of course, once NT's SAM has validated you as a user, you now have access to EVERYTHING that particular user has access to. Their home folder if they happen to have one, any applications they have permission to use, their documents, projects, shared resources with others, mapped drives, etc and so forth. Never mind the relative security of the computer operating system - just consider the government "IT department" mindset that manages a military computer network by giving all users one or the other of two different passwords to access the system. Frightening or what? I have had some dealings with EDS Systemhouse and found them both knowledgeable and professional. HOWEVER... given how widespread access points for the firearms networks will be, it will be federal government IT people like those out at CFB Suffield administering access to the computer network. How many administrators providing access to the firearms network will have the same attitudes towards passwords or other security measures as their counterparts out at CFB Suffield have? Think of that when the government tells you how secure and encrypted the firearms network will be - and then remember how many network intrusions are actually "inside jobs". It occurs to me as I finish this post that the Canadian Alliance defense critic should ask the highly competent Minister of Defense why all users on a military network at a place like Suffield that houses DRES share two common passwords that ultimately turn the network into an open one which gives access to anyone with access to a terminal. Mr. Moderator: why does the Digest keep trashing the format of my posts??? The list owner has been advised of the problem Rick. Meanwhile I am trying my best to fix them here after they arrive minus spacing. I truly hate to see your well thought out and presented postings thrashed in that way, Sir. Unfortunately it happens with a lot of posts and I am trying to fix them as much as time permits. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V4 #532 ********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Moderator's e-mail address: mailto:acardin33@shaw.ca List owner: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca FAQ list: http://www.magma.ca/~asd/cfd-faq1.html and http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Faq/cfd-faq1.html Web Site: http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/homepage.html FTP Site: ftp://teapot.usask.ca/pub/cdn-firearms/ CFDigest Archives: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/~ab133/ or put the next command in an e-mail message and mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca get cdn-firearms-digest v04.n192 end (192 is the digest issue number and 04 is the volume) To unsubscribe from _all_ the lists, put the next five lines in a message and mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca unsubscribe cdn-firearms-digest unsubscribe cdn-firearms-alert unsubscribe cdn-firearms-chat unsubscribe cdn-firearms end (To subscribe, use "subscribe" instead of "unsubscribe".) If you find this service valuable, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to the freenet we use: Saskatoon Free-Net Assoc., 1702 20th St. West, Saskatoon SK S7M OZ9 Phone: (306) 382-7070 modem lines: (306) 956-3700 and (306) 956-3701 Home page: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/ These e-mail digests are free to everyone, and are made possible by the efforts of countless volunteers. Permission is granted to copy and distribute this digest as long as it not altered in any way.