From: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V5 #317 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Sender: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Errors-To: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Cdn-Firearms Digest Tuesday, November 26 2002 Volume 05 : Number 317 In this issue: Bg dollars CRIMINAL CODE PROVES CHRETIEN IS AN OXYMORON virus Dual Registration? Fw: Britain's Dirty little Secret. My letter submitted to the Vancouver Province powder equivalences Journalist's Guide to Gun Violence Coverage... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 18:55:23 -0600 (CST) From: Lee Jasper Subject: Bg dollars On the CFD: >Grim greens -- and greenbacks >The 12 biggest environmental pressure groups in the United >States enjoy combined annual revenues of US $1.9-billion, >according to the latest Internal Revenue Service figures. Not >bad --that's $3-billion Canadian. Only 91 of Canada's two >million businesses enjoy revenues as big. >Among the green dozen are some -- Nature Conservancy >(US $731-million) and the Wildlife Conservation Council (US >$311-million) -- that are merely left-of-centre. But there are >also genuinely extreme organizations -- the World Wildlife Fund >(US $118-million) and the Sierra Club (US $73-million) -- What's the combined RFC budget in Canada? The federal Libs and Ontario provincial PCs treat the RFC like it's a non threat. >>that militate aggressively against the free market and attack >>property rights to the detriment of the economy and the >>majority of ordinary people. I see in Quebec, the next target is wildlife preserves. Having Canadian equivalent data would be useful. But is there a better argument than the U.S. example for the Canadian RFC to get politically organized under a Canadian equivalent of the NRA (or similar lobbying org.)? Have I not read that the NRA has about an 85% electoral - municipal, state and national - success rate? Other groups have far better track records (often due to their capacity to find productive affiliations with other well connected organizations who have the ear of government). Sender: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Reply-To: cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 18:55:23 -0600 (CST) From: janegaffin@canada.com Subject: CRIMINAL CODE PROVES CHRETIEN IS AN OXYMORON CRIMINAL CODE PROVES CHRETIEN IS AN OXYMORON by Jane Gaffin WHITEHORSE, Yukonslavia, Kanuckistan - The Bible of the law-enforcement business has become so complex that I, begrudgingly, invested in a new pocket edition of the Criminal Code of Canada for the year 2003. It is two-inches thick; over 1400 tissue-thin pages. Among the 11 acts incorporated into the Code, one is the firearms act and another is the Constitution Act (Charter of Rights and Freedoms). They clash. Ottawa never charter-proofed the firearms act. To bind these two documents between the same covers has created an oxymoron. It's akin to painting lipstick and mascara on a pig in an attempt to disguise it as a lady. I could rattle off 10 ways that law violates an individual's civil rights under the Charter, gun owner or not (Star, Jan. 18). I'd still be at least seven short, according to Bruce Hutton. The executive director of the Law-abiding, Unregistered Firearms Association (LUFA) was in Whitehorse recently to give a talk. He told a group of 115 concerned citizens that several firearms organizations hired graduate students last summer to study the firearms act and the Constitution Act. They identified no less than 17 ways in which the firearms act violates the Charter. For example, there is: loss of the right to be presumed innocent; loss of the right to be immune from unreasonable search and seizure; loss of right to remain silent; loss of right to consult with an attorney; loss of the right to own private property (the right to own private property is the cornerstone of democracy). To boot, the loss of right to self-defense has been severely compromised. How can public agents morally incorporate the firearms act and the Charter into one volume when the two acts clearly are at cross-purposes? The only answer is to say that the Liberals have free-rein to do whatever they please. And what they are doing is not pretty. A LUFA meeting attendee referred to the Canadian system of democracy under the Liberals as a "demockery". Writer John Orth preferred the term "sham democracy". In his excellent research piece titled "Is Canada a Free Nation?", Orth pointed out that the parliamentary system maintains the trappings of a participatory system. "In theory, power at the federal level is shared by three distinct structures: Parlaiment, the Senate and the Supreme Court. "This division of power should act as a system of checks and balances, preventing any person or group of people from arrogating themselves excessive authority." But the reality is just the opposite, Orth continued. "All three of these supposedly-independent bodies fall under the effective control of one man." That one man is Prime Minister Jean Chretien. Whenever ordinary people start talking about law, perhaps it is justified for lawyers grind their teeth. However, in my opinion, it is the ordinary people--you and me--who are affected by law. Law should be based on reason and common sense, written in a simple, straight-forward fashion to be obtainable by everybody of average intelligence. United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas often advises: "Whenever possible, the Court and judges generally should adopt clear, bright-line rules that, as I like to say to my law clerks, you can explain to the gas station attendant as easily as to a law professor." That philosphy was echoed by Stuart Whitley. He was conducting constitutional cases in Manitoba during the years when much litigation surrounded the actual meaning of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, following its enactment in 1982. "Did we get it figured out?" I asked, a bit cynically, in a 2000 interview. "We're still working on it," mused Whitley, the-then Yukon deputy minister of Justice. His two law books, "Criminal Justice and the Constitution" and "Jurisdiction in Criminal Law", rely heavily on literary references extracted from classic literature and poetry to liven up the law. Although both volumes are directed at lawyers and law students, he explained, one of his chief objectives was to write in a style that makes law obtainable by the layman. Early English law scholar, Sir John Powell, said "nothing is law that is not reason." But Canadian law has become so excessive and suffocating, it no longer makes sense. How can it therefore be reason? On the bench, judicial activists pretend statutes are written in disappearing ink. They make up the laws as they go along. This purposeful practice has reduced the nation to a shambles of anarchy and lawlessness. If we could revive great law scholars from the dead, the likes of Sir Edward Coke or Sir William Blackstone, what would they think about certain sections of the Criminal Code conflicting with other sections? Is it reason? If it isn't reason, the masters have already determined it isn't law. If it is considered to be law now, then it won't be long. A mob of government bureaucrats and lawyers are entombed underground Ottawa in a place tagged the "war department". They are zealously overhauling the Criminal Code. I break out in a cold sweat at the thought of the results. The Code will bear no semblance to Canadian law by the time the Liberals socially re-engineer the law of our land into alignment with the wishes of the United Nations for a One World Governance. It will be the last nail needed to hammer down and seal the lid of the coffin on parliamentary democracy forever...unless a miracle can reverse this trend. Well, I did find some redeeming features in the present-day Criminal Code. Toward the back is a whole section titled "Forms of Charges". My imagination went into super-overdrive as a delicious idea about "reverse onus" wafted through the brain cells. Chretien and his cabal would have to eat the same stuff they've been dishing out to us ordinary waifs as daily fare for too many years with too much evil consequences. About half of a 30 million population comprise a silent majority of civil rights advocates; of that half, about seven million are gun owners. Roughly seven million to 15 million Canadians could be foot soldiers. They could push their wheelbarrow-loads of documentation to their respective local police detachments and instruct Mr. Officer to lay charges against Crime Minister Jean Chretien under s. 122 for fraud and/or breach of trust by public officer. (This was the one used against former NDP B.C. Premier Glen Clark.) As an extra safety measure, the police could throw in identical charges against every federal minister of Justice from Allan Rock onward. It's payback time. Every Canadian lost representation in Parliament when Rock, at the behest of his boss, used the weasel tactic of premature closure to limit parliamentary debate on the highly-contentious, badly-flawed, freedom-sucking Bill C-68. It has caused no end to human suffering uselessly. A sample of the charge quoted from the Code reads: (Whoever) "on the (day) of (month), (year), at (specific time) in (specific place), did commit fraud (OR a breach of trust) in connection with the duties of his (OR her) office, to wit: (specify the particulars of the offence), contrary to s. 122 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Section 122 states: "Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person." All 15 million Canadians are not likely to be successful in their bid to have that many charges laid against Mr. Chretien. But it only takes one charge sticking to get the job done. And, all he would have to do to avoid this nasty piece of business, is to repent and repeal. At this moment, the Liberal minister of Justice Michael Cauchon has the power--without rubber-stamping any further legislation in Parliament--to order a ban on every single gun in Canada by regulation and order-in-council. The aboriginal people aren't above the gun law, either, and they too are going for non-compliance of registration before January 1, 2003 and embarking on expensive, extended court cases. It was Chretien's mentor, the late Pierre Trudeau, abused his position as prime minister by running the country as a dictator, signing off thousands of orders-in-council every year, when six would have been five too many. John Orth likened the order-in-council to a Royal Proclamation, an instrument better suited to a medieval fiefdom than a modern, democratic society. He suggested that if Canadians ever succeed in taking back control of the government, one of the first priorities must be to abolish this archaic practice. Does all this muck and misery make you feel warm and fuzzy inside about your kind, gentle, benevolent, elected dictator? If it does, it shouldn't. Yet there is little outward display that people cherish their freedom. And Canada seems bent on destroying its democracy by serving as a loud mouthpiece for the United Nations. Orth thinks there would still be some ray of hope if Canadians were showing some sign of fierce resistance--demonstrations in the street; newspapers flooded with angry letters; hundreds of thousands of people marching on Parliament Hill; the Liberal Party's popularity decimated to single digits. "Then at least the spark of freedom would still be alight," he declared. "Instead, we find the majority of Canadians are completely oblivious to these goings on. "How can this be? The warning signs are everywhere. Why can so few see them? Alarm bells are ringing. Why can so few hear them?" - - 30 - __________________________________________________________Get your FREE personalized e-mail at http://www.canada.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 00:23:04 -0600 (CST) From: Moderator@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca, CFD@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: virus accept nothing that comes from me in the form of a greeting card. It is virus laden and neutralizes Norton and defeats Zone Alarm. Takes several hours to complete recovery. Gordon ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 00:32:18 -0600 (CST) From: Jim Aldous Subject: Dual Registration? Does anyone have the definitive word on whether it is legal and/or advisable to register firearms to both owners if the firearms are jointly owned, as in by spouses? I would prefer to not take part in the Liberal charade but the firearms are needed for hunting. Jim ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 00:33:43 -0600 (CST) From: Ed Tait Subject: Fw: Britain's Dirty little Secret. Thank you to all who responded to my call for assistance I was finally able to develop a group list for, (at today's total) 43 newspapers....and to sent the letter simultaneously to them as bcc's.... Following is my first letter sent in this manner.... If anyone sees a published letter, I would appreciate them dropping me a note. Thanks again to all of you who responded to my request for computer assistance...! Ed Tait Victoria ps: I am sure this seems like nothing to most of you, but to one who is as computer challenged as I am, it's major...! - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Tait" Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 9:06 PM Subject: Britain's Dirty little Secret... The British government in 1997 passed into law, one of the world's most stringent gun bans. Universal registration was, regardless the political promises to the contrary, followed by confiscation by the State. Yet, Britain's murder rate has now risen to its highest level since records began to be kept, over a hundred years ago. The number of murders in the first eight months of this year has risen by over 22% in Britain's largest cities, this on top of a 4% rise in the murder rate in the year to March. A murder rate a full 20% higher than the total for 1997 the year the gun ban was imposed. Mr. Christopher Fox, vice-president of the British Association of Chief Police Officers admits that the rapidly rising murder rate in Britain is now out of line with even America, where it has been dropping significantly since 1995. Australia's experience is mirroring Britain's. So, where is Canada going.....In the same direction as Britain...! The price tag thus far....One Billion Dollars spent on the Federal Gun Registry. Wouldn't that money, have been better spent on education, cancer research, health care, the elderly...? I think so. Ed Tait 4462 Tyndall Avenue, Victoria, B.C. Canada V8T 3S1 250 721-5704 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 01:41:56 -0600 (CST) From: axitec@shaw.ca Subject: My letter submitted to the Vancouver Province - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Vancouver Province" Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 5:10 PM Subject: Re passengers unhappy with firearms on ferries, page A6, Nov 25. > the people polled regarding foot passengers transporting firearms on > Ferries, were obviously ignorant of firearms, the laws about them, and the > people that transport them. As stated in your article, the B.C. Ferry system > has never had an "incident" regarding firearms. their reasons for > discontinuing to allow walk on passengers to carry firearms was arbitrary, > and discriminatory! Besides the BCWF, My hometown Rod & Gun Club, was also > involved with letters of complaint to B.C. Ferries regarding this action, > and we also feel that we were part of the reason that the ruling was > reversed. > > Passengers, who gladly offered their opinions, without any basis in fact, > or any knowledge about firearms, only advertise how biased and ignorant they > are. Yet these same people would feel affronted were they to have the same > regulations applied to their hockey sticks and baseball bats! I'm also sure > that the two ton, four wheeled rolling "weapons" parked down below in the > bowels of the ferry, were left unattended. > > The "weapon" is between the ears, everything else is an object, or piece of > machinery. It requires human intervention or human misuse, to turn all those > items above into "weapons". The Responsible Firearms Community is NOT an > identifiable risk group with insurers, and are among the safest and most law > abiding members of Canadian society. You cannot legislate against insanity, > but considering the amount of red tape and checks we firearms owners must go > through to obtain a licence, it is highly unlikely, we would suddenly run > amok on a ferry in a murderous rampage. All we ask, is to be allowed to go > about our lives without having to defend our legal activities, against > unreasonable ignorance and discrimination! > > Respectfully, Gerry Kirkham. President, Powell River Rod & Gun Club, Powell > River, B.C. > > For Verification, 1-604-485-8389 > 6943 Egmont Street. PR. > V8A 1T7. > Email, axitec@shaw.ca > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 01:43:23 -0600 (CST) From: Michael Ackermann Subject: powder equivalences Jim, What I have done in similar circumstances is find an entry in the tables that displays loads for the powder I want to use and another powder I am familiar with. Then I compare the grains of powder X required to drive a bullet to the grains of powder Y required to drive the same bullet the same MV. Then I make a conversion factor. To double check, I then do the same exercise on a different table entry, and compare the conversion factors. If they are reasonably close I will use the average (i.e. Y=1.09X, Y=1.11X; average Y=1.10X) . I make sure I keep ~ 15% under maximum loads for safety. Then if you wish you could jack it up a bit using your chrony as a guide. I haven't blown myself up yet. If you want I can show you real life sample calculations done for one of my loads. - -- M.J. Ackermann, MD (Mike) President, St. Mary's Shooters Association Box 3, RR 1, 4132 Sonora Rd. Sherbrooke, NS Canada B0J 3C0 902-522-2172 My email: mikeack@ns.sympatico.ca SMSA URL: www.smsa.ca "Hope for the best, but plan for the worst". ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 01:43:24 -0600 (CST) From: Ed Tait Subject: Journalist's Guide to Gun Violence Coverage... Several days ago the Journalist's Guide to Gun Violence Coverage was posted in the Digest. It was attributed to a Professor Michael Brown who was purported to be on the faculty of the Journalism School of the Vancouver College of Liberal Arts. This bothered me.....How could it be that such an incredibly biased article could have been penned right here in B.C....? and more to the point, how could an established, accredited College, allow such to be used in a scholarly curriculum...? So, I started looking, first for the College and then for Mr. Brown. I can't find either..... As you can see from the responses I have received from the Vancouver, (Washington) College of Liberal Arts, they don't have either a School of Journalism, or a Professor Brown. I think we might have been duped..... Ed Tait Victoria - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ginny Taylor" To: "Ed Tait" Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 9:47 AM Subject: Re: Journalist's Guide...... I checked our Pullman, WA campus and could not locate either a Michael Brown or School of Journalism. I do not have any information re: the college in Vancouver, BC. At 09:29 AM 11/25/02 -0800, you wrote: >Ginny > >Thank you for responding to my query. > >I cannot find a Vancouver College of Liberal Arts in Vancouver, B.C. if you >might assist me in connecting with them, I would be in your debt. > >I take however, from your response, that your college does not have a School >of Journalism, nor a Professor Michael Brown on staff...? > >Ed Tait > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Ginny Taylor" >To: "Ed Tait" >Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 8:59 AM >Subject: Re: Journalist's Guide...... > > >We are located in Vancouver, WA, and are a branch campus of Washington >State University. I believe you are inquiring about someone located in >Vancouver, BC Canada. > >At 01:23 PM 11/23/02 -0800, you wrote: > >Dear Sir or Madame > > > >I write to inquire whether or no the following 'Guide' is correctly > >attributed. I received a copy of same as a result of interaction on the > >Internet. > > > >You will note that it is reputed to have been written by a Mr. Michael >Brown > >of your School of Journalism. > > > >I noted in my review of your website that you did not advertise such a > >school. > > > >I await with interest your confirmation of Mr. Brown's connection to your > >college and he as the author of the following 'guide' or, your alternate > >response. > > > >Regards > > > >Ed Tait > >Victoria > > > > > >The Journalist's Guide to Gun Violence Coverage > > > >Guns are a sad fact of life in American culture and are a major > >topic in modern journalism. A good Journalist has a duty to get > >involved and make a difference in this important societal debate. By > >following certain guidelines, the concerned Journalist can be assured of > >having the maximum impact on this shameful problem. > >The first principle to remember is that subtle use of terminology can > >covertly influence the reader. Adjectives should be chosen for maximum > >anti-gun effect. When describing a gun, attach terms like "automatic," > >"semi-automatic," "large calibre," "deadly," "high powered," or > >"powerful". Almost any gun can be described by one or more of these > >terms. More than two guns should be called an "arsenal". > >Try to include the term "assault weapon" if at all possible. This > >can be combined with any of the terms above for best results. Nobody > >actually knows what an assault weapon is, so you cannot be criticized > >for this usage. Your local anti-gun organization can provide you with a > >list of the latest buzz words like "junk guns," "Saturday Night > >Specials," and "the criminal's weapon of choice". > >Don't worry about getting technical details right. Many a reporter > >has accidentally written about semi-automatic revolvers or committed > >other minor errors. Since most people know little about guns, this is > >not a problem. Only the gun nuts will complain and they don't count. > >The emotional content of your article is much more important than the > >factual details, since people are more easily influenced through their > >emotions than through logic. > >Broadcast Journalists should have a file tape showing a machine gun > >firing on full automatic. Run this video while describing "automatic" > >weapons used in a crime or confiscated by police. At the least, a > >large graphic of a handgun should be displayed behind the on-air > >personality when reading any crime story. > >Do not waste words describing criminals who use guns to commit > >crimes. Instead of calling them burglar, rapist, murderer, or repeat > >offender, simply use the term "gunman". This helps the public associate > >all forms of crime and violence with the possession of guns. > >Whenever drug dealers are arrested, guns are usually confiscated by > >the police. Mention the type and number of guns more prominently than > >the type and quantity of drugs. Include the number of rounds of > >ammunition seized, since the number will seem large to those who know > >little about guns. Obviously, the drug dealers who had the guns should > >now be called "gunmen". > >Political discussions on gun control legislation usually involve > >pro-gun organizations. Always refer to these organizations as "the gun > >lobby". If space permits, mention how much money the gun lobby has > >spent to influence political campaigns and describe their legislative > >lobbying efforts as "arm twisting" or "threats". > >Gun owners must never be seen in a positive light. Do not mention > >that these misguided individuals may actually be well educated, or have > >respectable jobs and healthy families. They should be called "gun nuts" > >if possible or simply gun owners at best. Mention details about their > >clothing, especially if they are wearing hunting clothes or hats. > >Mention the simplistic slogans on their bumper stickers to show that > >their intelligence level is low. Many gun owners drive > >pickup trucks, hunt and live in rural areas. Use these details to help > >portray them as ignorant rednecks. Don't use the word "hunt". > >Always say that they "kill" animals. > >Don't be afraid to interview these people, they are harmless even > >though we don't portray them that way. Try to solicit comments that can > >be taken out of context to show them in the worst possible light. > >Never question the effectiveness of gun control laws or proposals. > >Guns are evil and kill people. Removing guns from society can only be > >good. Nobody really uses guns for legitimate self-defence, especially > >women or children. Any stories about armed self-defence must be > >minimized or suppressed. > >Be careful about criticizing the police for responding slowly to 911 > >calls for help. It is best if the public feels like the police can be > >relied upon to protect them at all times. If people are buying guns to > >protect their families, you are not doing your job. > >Emphasize stories where people kill family members and/or themselves > >with guns. It is important to make the public feel like they could lose > >control and start killing at any moment if they have a gun in the > >house. Any story where a child misuses a gun is front page material. > >View every shooting as an event to be exploited. Always include > >emotional quotes from the victim's family if possible. If they are not > >available, the perpetrator's family will do nicely. The quote must > >blame the tragedy on the availability of guns. Photos or video of > >grieving family members are worth a thousand facts. Most people will > >accept the assertion that guns cause crime. It is much easier than > >believing that some people deliberately choose to harm others. > >Your story should include terms like "tragic" or "preventable" and > >mention the current toll of gun violence in your city or state. Good > >reporters always know exactly how many gun deaths have occurred in their > >area since the first of the year. List two or three previous incidents > >of gun violence to give the impression of a continuing crime wave. > >Little space should be devoted to shootings where criminals kill each > >other. Although these deaths greatly inflate the annual gun violence > >numbers, they distract from the basic mission of urging law abiding > >citizens to give up their guns. Do not dig too deeply into the reasons > >behind shootings. The fact that a gun was involved is the major point, > >unless someone under 18 is affected, in which case the child angle is > >now of equal importance. > >Any article about gun violence should include quotes from anti-gun > >organizations or politicians. One quote should say that we must do > >something "for the children". Anti-gun spokespersons should be called > >"activists" or "advocates". If your employer wishes to appear > >unbiased, you can include one token quote from a gun lobby group to show > >that you are being fair. The anti-gun statements should be accepted as > >fact. The gun lobby statement can be denigrated by including text like, > >"according to gun lobbyist Jones." > >Fortunately, statements from anti-gun organizations come in short > >sound bites that are perfect for generating an emotional response in the > >reader or viewer. Gun lobby statements usually contain boring facts > >that are easy to ignore. > >Feel secure in your advocacy journalism. The vast majority of your > >fellow Journalists support your activism. The nation will be a better > >place when only the police and military have guns. Remember that you > >are doing it for the children so the end justifies the means. > >Eventually, the government will have a monopoly on power. Don't > >worry about the right to freedom of the press, just contact me then for > >more helpful hints. > >Professor Michael Brown > >School of Journalism, Brady Chair : > >Vancouver College of Liberal Arts > > > >Ginny Taylor >WSU Vancouver >Public Affairs Department >14204 NE Salmon Creek Avenue >Vancouver, WA 98686 >360-546-9640 >taylorg@vancouver.wsu.edu Ginny Taylor WSU Vancouver Public Affairs Department 14204 NE Salmon Creek Avenue Vancouver, WA 98686 360-546-9640 taylorg@vancouver.wsu.edu ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V5 #317 ********************************** 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., P.O. Box 1342, Saskatoon SK S7K 3N9 Phone: (306) 382-7070 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.