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 #727 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 Wednesday, February 5 2003 Volume 05 : Number 727 In this issue: Toronto Star Article Oops, gun registry a failure Re: Clifford Olson Billboards Re: MPs outraged over missing gun registry report: Re: ....loss of moral compass.... Airport security not good enough Re: Not a flame- just my opinion. Re: Privacy Rights Stand Against Gun Registry Re: Clifford Olson Billboards Re: Not a flame- just my opinion. Re: Rawanda ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 10:22:27 -0600 (CST) From: "Michael Federchuk" Subject: Toronto Star Article >Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 07:45:23 -0600 (CST) >From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" >Subject: PM vows to fix gun program > >PUBLICATION: Toronto Star >DATE: 2003.02.05 >SECTION: NEWS >PAGE: A08 >SOURCE: Toronto Star >BYLINE: Tonda MacCharles >DATELINE: OTTAWA > Curiously, this article did not appear in this morning's edition of the Toronto Star. At least not in the copy that was delivered to my house, or one i rifled through at work. Perhapse it only appeared in copies distributed outside the greater Toronto Area? Mike Federchuk Burlington, Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 10:43:59 -0600 (CST) From: "O.F.A.H. Webmaster" Subject: Oops, gun registry a failure Publication: Peterborough Examiner Date: February 4, 2003 Section: Letter to the Editor Byline: Chuck Philips, Peterborough Re Peter Adams's letter ("Gun registry supported," Examiner, Jan. 29). Mr. Adams stated that the police use the registry 2,000 times a day. They have been doing this since the implementation of the handgun registry in 1934. The registry does not reduce the risk of firearms being stolen. It does not reduce the unauthorized use of firearms. Nor does it reduce heat-of-the-moment use of firearms and it does not reduce firearms accidents. The registry does not stop the illegal smuggling of firearms into this country. Proper storage of firearms reduces the risk of theft and child involved accidents. Proper training reduces the risk of firearm accidents. Automobile registration does not deter thefts. One car is stolen every three minutes. Automobile registration does not stop accidents. Driver's licenses do not stop accidents or speeding or impaired driving. If the government imposed the same system for obtaining a driver's license as it does for a firearm license there would be a lot fewer drivers out there. People are to blame for improper use of firearms and automobiles. The government is eager to spend millions of your dollars on a system that won't work. You think for one minute that a person who is planning to use a firearm in a crime is going to stop and say, Oops, I can't use this gun because it's registered and I don't have a licence. Get real. People who are worried about guns should be spending their time hounding the government to impose stiffer penalties on the people who abuse the system. Chuck Phillips Peterborough ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 11:46:49 -0600 (CST) From: Jim Powlesland Subject: Re: Clifford Olson Billboards On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Glock22 .40 S & W wrote: > This is a great idea. No it's not. It's dumb and counter-productive. > Question: Could we use his pic without authorization? It's not Olson you have to worry about. The Liberal Party (a party full of lawyers) would sue your *ss. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 11:47:30 -0600 (CST) From: Jim Powlesland Subject: Re: MPs outraged over missing gun registry report: On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1 wrote: > Prime Minister Jean Chretien insisted yesterday the government > intends to press on with the registry, despite rising opposition and > mounting costs. Forget Bernardo. The registry is not dead. Nor will it be until the Liberals are out of power. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 12:08:19 -0600 (CST) From: Rick Lowe Subject: Re: ....loss of moral compass.... "Todd Birch" wrote: > Before you slap a label on me of any kind, prove me wrong. I guess I > don't understand the term "moral compass". Where there are no absolute > values of right and wrong, that nation can be said to have lost it's > moral compass. Where there is no "capital crime" (read: murder), there > cannot be "capital punishment". That is the lesson of history. I haven't seen anybody slapping labels on anyone in this discussion. However, whenever I hear a church or some other group advocating change due to the lack of a "moral compass", it usually turns out that what the group is lamenting is that it is not THEIR "moral compass" that the country is using. The reality of North America is that, like it or not, we are a meld of many cultures, beliefs, and assorted and other sundry things. What is fine for one group is prohibited for another; what is acceptable for one group is not for another. Whose absolute values of right and wrong do we use? Yours? Mine? Theirs? Absolute values leave no room for differing beliefs. There is no doubt that our "caretakers" often go too far in how we deal with our struggle to have a society that is fair and as respectful as possible to as many people as we can reasonably accomodate without creating undue hardship for the majority. The bad, however, does not justify throwing out the good - or falling back on old prejudices. Our local fire and brimstone clergy was at it again the other day, bemoaning the fact we no longer have morning prayers in schools. Frankly, the hell with him. We had morning prayers to start the school day when I went to public school, which was no skin off my nose either way, it was just part of the school day. It was totally meaningless to me and probably most of the other kids, so I imagine our dose of Christianity and humility were pretty meaningless to God or whoever was listening as well. But I do remember one girl who refused to take part in school prayer, due to whatever belief I cannot recall these 40 some odd years later. Maybe she was from one of the more obscure Christian religions, she may have been Jewish, or agnostic, athiest, whatever. But in short, those good Christian teachers made her life hell attempting to drag her closer to God. I remember that girl every time I hear some religious group bemoaning the fact we don't have prayer in public schools anymore. Speaking for myself, I have little use for people who want to interfere with how people wish to practice or express their religion in public, given that it is done within a liberally interpreted reasonable manner. I feel the same way about people who want to impress religion on kids or others who either aren't interested in it at all or aren't interested in that particular version. Having said that, I see nothing wrong with having morning prayers to start the school day in public schools. Simply have school start 15 minutes early for those who wish to pray at school rather than at home. The assorted Christian denominations who can agree on prayer can have their moment with God in one area of the school, the Moslims in another, those of the Jewish faith their own, etc. The agnostics, athiests, and those who don't feel the need for pray at school can arrive at the start of the teaching day. But why Moslim, Jewish, Buddhist, athiest, agnostic kids should be subjected to part of Christian morning prayers is as ridiculous to me as subjecting Christian kids to Moslim or Jewish or Buddhist prayers every morning. It shows no respect for the kids, and frankly, I don't think Jesus or Mohommed or Buddha would have thought much of the practice either. Besides, I have this rather quaint idea that my child's religion and how we observe it is my responsibility, not the teacher's. The point of all of this is that there really is no "moral compass", one size fits all solution. The extremists on either side - Sven Robinson attacking religion and the others trying to shove it down our throats - achieve nothing but polarizing people, angering many, and in general doing their little bit to make us a society that is just that much more divided. The same thing goes for child pornography, homosexuality, gun banning and a host of other hot buttons that cause people to jump on assorted bandwagons. The core of a functioning society is shared beliefs, and not specific beliefs. We all, presumably, agree that people should have the freedom to worshop OR NOT WORSHIP as they so choose. Specifying what that religious belief should be - or mandating participation in religious activities - certainly goes too far. One would hope that we might have arrived at the point that peoples' sexual orientation and expression of same was a right we shared as well, but clearly that is not the case. The acts that are evil in and of themselves are not the problem - nobody argues over the fact that killing somebody without good reason, robbery, assault, etc are crimes. It is when groups and individuals in power start applying their particular "moral compass" to all of us that things start to go awry. "Moral compasses", to my mind, are an open invitation to let somebody else apply their values to YOUR life. One group thinks child pornography should be prohibited, and the circumstances of how it was made or the format it was in is immaterial. No problem - but then sooner or later you can bet somebody will be arguing that books from Paladin Press should be confiscated at the border as well because they also encourage crime. Oh wait... Customs and the Government already do that. And exactly the same justification that was used to prohibit all child pornography is used to seize firearms related books. And books on ideological thought. And then it never ends. > In a discussion with a United Church 'clergyperson', I was accused of > being homophobic. When I countered by pointing out that any society that > had historically embraced homosexuality as socially acceptable was > rotten to the core and close to collapse, she blanched. Even she > realized the historical fact. I suspect she blanched for different reasons than acceptance of what you believe to be historical fact... China accepted homosexuality for thousands of years and homosexuals occupied important positions in the governing of the country. The fact that the Chinese empire eventually collapsed due to revolution can hardly be blamed on homosexuality. They had a level of sophistication that it took the Western world and emerging technologies a long time to catch up with. The Greeks also accepted homosexuality and had a balanced and well functioning society for many years under those conditions. There is no more correlation between acceptance of homosexuality and the collapse of a society than there is between that collapse and the fact they also owned weapons. Accepting something, incidentally, doesn't mean you like it or advocate it or can reconcile it with your religious beliefs. It simply means showing the same respect and tolerance you would expect from others in allowing you to live your life as you choose. If people spent as much time worrying about how they live their lives as worrying about how others live theirs, I think the world would be a much happier place. I am always somewhat bemused by the antagonism of people towards homosexuals. I find the idea of homosexuality distastful for myself, but I don't feel any antagonism towards it. Are people afraid they might be "converted" - do they have doubts about their own sexuality? That their kids' sexual orientation can be changed by "recruiting"? Are people forced to watch homosexuals engaged in the acts that are so offensive and distastful to them? I'm afraid that about the best I can muster up when I think of homosexuals is "Better you than me, buddy." Considering the crap they have to put up with, I can't imagine voluntarily choosing homosexuality over heterosexuality. Besides, who wants to sleep naked next to somebody with a hairy butt for the rest of your life? Not me! > I don't particularly care about who does what to whom or how, but I see > the effects of this lack of standards (read: moral compass) on society > and it is disconcerting. There are some Moslim countries with particularly stringent moral compasses based on a uniformly shared religion and very strong standards of right and wrong dealing with pretty much every subject you would encounter in day to day life. I don't want to live there. I don't want to ever live in a Christian country that behaves in the same way either - and we've seen that in past history with pretty much the same results that the Moslim countries have experienced. If somebody forced me to come up with a reason for the problems in our society, I would say we have lost the ability to think critically and unemotionally about issues, and in our "me first" society we have naturally extended our refusal to be personally accountable to not demanding accountability of others, whether they be our hunting buddy or our politicians. But when we speak of "moral compasses", censorship, and other value judgements, we forget that "unintended consequences" isn't just about gun control and governments. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 12:09:02 -0600 (CST) From: Barry Glasgow Subject: Airport security not good enough to: The Ottawa Citizen cc: David Collenette I read Jim Bronskill's article on airport security with great interest in light of a recent incident that proved once and for all that our government has no clue when it comes to national security, defense or anything else of significant importance to Canadians. Despite repeated assurances from Transport Minister, David Collenette that we have nothing to worry about regarding security at our airports, I discovered a missing folding hunting knife in my carry-on bag upon my return from a recent trip to Toronto. Not only was this razor-sharp knife easily accessable from outside the bag but it managed to escape detection during inspection of the bag both here in Ottawa and in Toronto - though inspectors at both airports did a fine job of making sure my computer contained no explosives. I don't fly very often so you'd have to wonder at the odds of smuggling something far more dangerous than a box cutter aboard a plane on two out of two occasions. No wonder the Liberal government wants to keep security audit data a secret. It's typical of how they cover up their incompetence, mismanagement and waste of taxpayer dollars. Barry Glasgow Woodlawn, Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 12:46:56 -0600 (CST) From: Rick Lowe Subject: Re: Not a flame- just my opinion. Vulcun1isback@aol.com > My personal feelings on it are this- When someone supports the rights of > individuals to view child pornography- they are supporting the same criminal > element that develops it(often against the will of the Child , or the child > has been cooerced by alchohol or narcotics) Yes, and when you support the rights of individuals to view books on how to make silencers, make automatic weapons, convert weapons, etc, you are supporting the same criminal elements who developed that knowledge and material by manufacturing silencers, weapons, etc. Fortunately for our society, Customs industriously protects all of us from these dangerous goings on by confiscating both child pornography and books relating to silencers, making automatic weapons, etc. And through the efforts of our loving, caring government to protect our minds from ourselves, we are all that much safer. The fact that criminologists are unable to find any causal link between these sorts of books and criminal acts is relatively unimportant. > Many ,many kids are kidnapped each year by gangs exactly for such purposes(or > worse-prostitution) ..anyone who supports Child Pornography (and I'm am in no Now I find this particularly fascinating as I still meddle in the criminology literature a bit even though I'm long out of university and my occupation has nothing to do with criminology or law enforcement anymore. I wasn't aware that many, many kids are kidnapped each year in North America for the purposes of making child pornography and prostitution. And the vast majority of child pornography always has been white kids. In fact, I thought this kind of crime in Canada was relatively rare. Could you refer me to where I could learn more about this apparently common crime? > - - I agree personally with the CA, there can be absolutely no "public moral > good" out of anyone who gets some type of enjoyment from viewing child > pornography...and for me personally.. I just think it's plain "sick". (if you And there's the rub with moral compasses and "public moral good". There's lots of people out there who think it's just plain sick if you spank your children because it is nothing less than criminal assault. There's lots of people out there who think you're just plain sick if you want to read books on making silencers, survivalist literature on making handguns, converting firearms, etc. And there's lots of people out there who think anybody who wants to own handguns or military rifles is just plain sick. Whose public moral compass do we get to choose to live by? Good deal if they choose yours - not so good if they choose somebody else's... As for the Canadian Alliance... and with all due respect to the great work being done by Gary and his team... I don't have a whole lot of time for their "public moral good." This is, after all, the same party whose House leader, John Reynolds, threw the support of the CA behind the Liberal government's current attack on individual freedom and privacy in this country. The justification for supporting these so called "anti-terrorist" laws by proclaiming that "law abiding citizens should have nothing to hide" should strike real fear in the heart of every Canadian who values their freedom and privacy. Funny thing... my CA MP never mentioned this to me or asked what I thought about the CA party supporting this disgusting legislation. Freedom isn't a partial thing - you are either free or you are not. And when we allow the freedoms of others to be taken away to suit our whims, beliefs and personal biases, it is a pretty safe bet that sooner or later somebody will be along to take away some of our freedoms to satisfy their personal issues. In the end, we are all diminished. We have lost our recognition that the loss of freedom by one group of people is actually a loss of freedom by us all and inevitably leads to further losses down the road. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 12:48:43 -0600 (CST) From: Rick Lowe Subject: Re: Privacy Rights Stand Against Gun Registry Bruce Mills forwarded this from a law firm: > Reviewing the events of the past two years, it is clear where the location > of the Achilles' heel of the gun registry lies. .... > The core of the gun registry is a data base known as the FIP database. This Well that is not correct. First, the FIP database is not the core of the registry. Nor is it, in my opinion, the Achilles' heel of the gun registry; the weak point is the registry itself: its' complexity, cost, and unreliability. However, I will read on... > database is fed by over 900 police and other sources from across the > country. The information in this database is used to make decisions on who > gets a license and who does not. Further, it is used to make decisions on > which licenses get yanked. Yes. Along with CPIC. Along with PIRS. Along with local indices checks. Along with interviews... Refusal or the issue of a license is not contingent on any one part of the information available. > As a right, any person can request access and correction of information held > in the FIP database. The problem is, to do this, you must trace back through > the complexities of the various levels of government departments and police > departments, which make up this database, in order to correct the > information. To clarify a bit, there is no problem finding out if you are in FIP or not - that is a simple matter of a free Privacy Act request, which I have done for both myself and for others. There is a problem if there is information in there you want corrected and it didn't originate with the RCMP who maintain the FIP database. > 1. As a lawyer who understands the complexities of Privacy Law in this > country I will be able to force the Privacy Commissioner to pay attention > and take full action against the gun Registry. > > 2. This will be done by creating a central access point and a critical mass > of hundreds of gun owners across the country. > > 3. The Privacy Commissioner states there is no central access point. I WILL > BECOME THAT ACCESS POINT. This is confusing. Is this fellow talking about the firearms registry database here - or the FIP database? Or does he have the two confused? The most effective and cheapest way to attack either one is for every single firearms owner in this country to file Privacy Act requests for each database. These requests aren't cheap to comply with, and a 100,000 or so would make an awful dent in both human resources and operating budgets within the Firearms Program. > If you wish to stop this intrusion of the State into your life you will want > to join us and sign on as a client. The retainer will be nominal > (approximately $100.00 - 10% of which will be donated back to Free Dominion > from my Law Firm). Once you have retained our firm we will ask for no > further money from you. Ummm, I'm not sure how this law firm figures he can get the Privacy Commissioner to put an end to firearms registration. If it is the FIP he is talking about, there may be something there. The Privacy Act request to determine if you are in the FIP database to begin with (I'm not - yet, BTW) is free. If you do find you are in there and the information is inaccurate, then I suppose $100 to have a law firm force the information to be deleted or withdrawn would be money very well spent indeed. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 12:49:23 -0600 (CST) From: "Mark Horstead" Subject: Re: Clifford Olson Billboards - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Powlesland" To: Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 12:46 PM Subject: Re: Clifford Olson Billboards > On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Glock22 .40 S & W wrote: > > > This is a great idea. > > No it's not. It's dumb and counter-productive. Could be. A backlash could well be the result. > The Liberal Party (a party full of lawyers) would sue your *ss. If the quote is accurate, I don't see how. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 12:56:33 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: Not a flame- just my opinion. Rick Lowe wrote: > And there's the rub with moral compasses and "public moral good". > Whose public moral compass do we get to choose to live by? Good deal if they > choose yours - not so good if they choose somebody else's... > Freedom isn't a partial thing - you are either free or you are not. And when we > allow the freedoms of others to be taken away to suit our whims, beliefs and > personal biases, it is a pretty safe bet that sooner or later somebody will be > along to take away some of our freedoms to satisfy their personal issues. > > In the end, we are all diminished. We have lost our recognition that the loss > of freedom by one group of people is actually a loss of freedom by us all and > inevitably leads to further losses down the road. This is why laws must be measured against the absolute authority of "rights", not the arbitrary standard of "morals". There must be rights, equality and freedom for everyone, or there is freedom for no one. Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 12:57:24 -0600 (CST) From: B Farion Subject: Re: Rawanda > What we particularly need are photos of the the country and > the Rwandan people, including images of refugees from the > genocide, life in Rwandan towns and villages, etc. (We have > photos of the actual genocide, though we can always use > others.) > Well, you should also try and find out who supplied the ammunition to the militia's that orchestrated the genocide. My source, the Economist said it came from the French (Africa Desk) thru Uganda. Guns are pretty damn useless without ammo! ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V5 #727 ********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Moderator's e-mail address: mailto:akimoya@sprint.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.