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 #775 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 Saturday, February 15 2003 Volume 05 : Number 775 In this issue: Re: Pacifism Re: One donut too many Re: Rumsfeld, France and deer hunting Re: Pacifism Re: Rumsfeld, France and deer hunting Lethbridge Gun Show Fw:eh? !!!!! Those Canadian guys.... Re: Micheal Moore powder not legally explosive. Re: Pacifism France / Bernard Fall - Not exactly on Topic ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 22:52:20 -0600 (CST) From: "Brad Thorarinson" Subject: Re: Pacifism From: "Marc Thibault" > > "Julie McNeice" wrote > > Pacifism is not the refusal to fight under any circumstances. I posted that actually. > > If pacifism is not the refusal to fight under any circumstances, then > the term is meaningless and useless for drawing a distinction, and we > need a new word to replace it. Most of us prefer peace to war, but in > the common meaning of the term, this does not make us pacifists. Well, if we do not agree on the meaning of the words we are using, a discussion of the meaning of the words is the first step in dialogue. Most of us might very well prefer peace to war, but there are plenty of people all over the world who lean toward war on a small scale at least, the courts and the streets are full of em every day. Wife beaters, muggers, pedophiles, schoolyard bullies, criminal gangs, pimps, and the like. I for one do see a difference between the mugger and the person who is willing to take whatever steps are reasonable to prevent herself being mugged. The former is not a pacifist, the latter, IMO is not disqualified from taking that label. > Sucking the blood out of a word in this fashion is childish play, not > serious discussion. > > In the original context, the use of the term "pacifist" was > reasonably polite. It avoided the more appropriate "mindless", or > "dumb as a rock", or "silly liberal dingbat". > And I did not use any of those terms. While the current crop of 'peace activists' for want of a better term, might well be honest and well meaning, I question whether their attitude is realistic. We are fortunate now in North America to be rather shielded from a lot of the ugly reality that has been - and is - human existence. We don't generally fear being snatched off the street and 'disappearing' because of our political views. We don't organize ourselves into gangs to butcher our neighbors of a different ethnic origin. Kids wandering the streets are not killed by 'business organizations' to cut down on street crime. The government doesn't conscript us and march us off to the front to martyr ourselves by the thousands to overwhelm 'the enemy'. Deciding to go out for a pizza isn't a life and death situation like it very well might be in Israel for example. The peace, prosperity, and freedom we have is precious and rare. It may be transient, unless someone, somewhere, works to keep it. Individuals, groups, society all must _work_ to keep it. Whether it is a rogue state, a rogue government, rogue group or rogue individual, someone has to keep the slugs under the rocks where they belong, and a true pacifist will pitch in and do his share. At least, accorcing to my definition of the word. Brad ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 22:52:58 -0600 (CST) From: Vulcun1isback@aol.com Subject: Re: One donut too many It appears the story concerning the cops who couldn't catch the 85 year old valentines day lover- was not a local incident after all- but one that happened in Italy- so I guess the pit stops at Tim Hortons is still a valid "patrol area". ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 22:57:56 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: Rumsfeld, France and deer hunting Jim Szpajcher wrote: > With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor, > Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, > The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. > Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, > I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" > > Jim Szpajcher And now, 120 years later, that door is closed, with a "No Vacancy" sign on it. The US must start exporting democracy and freedom to those places where it does not exist, and from where this "wretched refuse" comes. There's no more room in the inn. Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 03:09:37 -0600 (CST) From: Rick Lowe Subject: Re: Pacifism "Marc Thibault" said: > In the original context, the use of the term "pacifist" was > reasonably polite. It avoided the more appropriate "mindless", or > "dumb as a rock", or "silly liberal dingbat". Interesting observation. I wonder how many people have actually seen pacifists in action to back up their opinion? In Yugo, a pacifist run through a probably mined area to bring back some civilians who were under "sniper" fire. All the Canadian troops, armed with all manner of automatic weaponry and wearing Kevlar armour and body armour, quite sensibly stayed behind cover rather than risking getting a leg blown off or shot for some civilians they didn't know. In other parts of the world, Friends and others with similar beliefs are putting themselves between murderers - thinly masked as soldiers - and innocent civilians. I have had the honour of meeting a few of them. It ain't for me. I much preferred doing my peacemaking with a C7A1 in hand or better yet behind the .50 cal in the turrent of the carrier. And with my similarly armed section at my command to back me up. You might well be able to argue pacifists are stupid. But unless you've got the guts to go them one better, you can't argue the courage of their convictions. They've got more jam than I've got, and are prepared to lay it further on the line than I ever was - you'll never catch me playing Balkans Roulette, running through an area with "mines" sign while some drunken Serb empties a mag at me. As it stands, the vast majority of us don't even have the cajones to stick our necks out far enough to get arrested as Messrs Hudson and Turnbull have - and that includes me - never mind sticking our neck out as a pacifist. So who are we to question the courage or convictions of others, hmmmm? If we can't walk the walk, then maybe we shouldn't talk the talk. I think we have a problem when we lump all those who profess pacifism together as cowards and idiots yet snivel when we are similarly stereotyped as potential criminals or sit frothing at the mouth uselessly while the registration machine grinds exorably onward. There are those who call themselves pacifists who are little more than cowards... and there are those who call themselves responsible firearms owners who in truth should not be trusted with a cap pistol. In neither case should the majority be judged by the false few. Or perhaps you'd like all firearms owners to be judged by the character and actions of one Jim Hinter... ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 03:11:27 -0600 (CST) From: Rick Lowe Subject: Re: Rumsfeld, France and deer hunting Jim Szpajcher" wrote: > "GOING TO WAR WITHOUT FRANCE IS LIKE GOING DEER HUNTING WITHOUT YOUR > ACCORDIAN." > > - DONALD RUMSFELD Well, the French certainly know what it is like to go to war while the US government keeps its' soldiers at home and takes care of the cash register for the first three or four years. After all, the US did it to France and the rest of the world twice in the last century. Furthermore, while French troops were fighting - and dying - in the Balkans while the war there was still a war, Rumsfeld and the US were safe and cozy at home, refusing to get drawn into laying it on the line until the Dayton Peace Accords had been signed. Prior to that, the French were dying in Indonesia in a war the US supported with money - but not with troops until it was too late (whatever you believe about whether that war was right or not). Where were the Americans at Dien Bien Phu when French paratroopers knowingly jumped into a hopeless battle? At Medak in the Balkans in 1993, while the French fought and held the line beside the Canadians - and died? Or is Rumsfeld's memory that short? Mind you, Rumsfeld also knows about staying home when the bullets start to fly. When other US reserve aviators were going to war in Vietnam, Donny Boy stayed home safe and sound looking after his political aspirations - but staying in the active reserve so he could play the soldier. How many reservists has Rumsfeld activated for Iraq when he didn't go as a reservist when it was his turn, can anybody tell me? Nothing wrong with choosing not to ride to the sound of the cannons. But fairly contemptible when you don't know your own nations history and you haven't exactly fallen all over yourself rushing off to war when your chance came. It is so much less risky to send the young fellas into war once you've risen to the point where there's no personal risk to you or expectation of you going. Just political gain. Ho Humm... > France and the U.S. have a relationship going back over hundreds of years, > and for Rumsfeld to make these comments is a huge insult to the French. > While there is no requirement for nations to stay allies - or enemies - the > level of scorn that the Americans are treating all the other nations of the > world will come back to haunt them. Yep, well said. > We are witnessing the start of the decline in Pax Americana. My only hope is I also agree with that as well, Jim. And I am reminded of Ben Johnson's comment that "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel". ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 03:12:19 -0600 (CST) From: Rick Lowe Subject: Lethbridge Gun Show I understand there is a gun show in Lethbridge this weekend. If anyone is going, I am looking for a falling block of one description or another if you see any out there that aren't in the $2000 range. What are the odds that Snake Oil Jim and Devious Dave won't be there to be accountable to NFA members? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 03:14:22 -0600 (CST) From: The Jordan's Subject: Fw:eh? !!!!! Those Canadian guys.... Fw:eh? !!!!! Those Canadian guys.... Osama Bin Laden was sitting in his cave wondering which country to invade next, when his telephone rang. "Hallo, Mr. Laden" a heavily accented voice said. "This is Archie, down 'ere at the Harp Seal Pub in Badger's Cove, Newfoundland, Canada ey? I am callin' to tells ya dat we are officially declaring war on you ey!" "Well Archie," Osama replied, "This is indeed important news! How big is your army?" "Right now," said Archie, after a moments calculation "there is myself, me cousin Harold, me next-door-neighbor Mick, and the whole dart team from the pub. That makes eight!" Osama paused. "I must tell you Archie, that I have one million men in my army waiting to move on my command." "Holy jeez," said Archie. "I'll have ta call ya back!" Sure enough, the next day, Archie called again. "Mr. Laden, the war is still on! We have managed to acquire some infantry equipment!" "And what equipment would that be Archie?", Osama asked. "Well sir, we have two combines, a bulldozer, and Harry's farm tractor." Osama sighed. "I must tell you Archie, that I have 16,000 tanks and 14,000 armoured personnel carriers. Also I've increased my army to one and a half million since we last spoke." "Lard T'underin' Jaysus, bye", said Archie, "I'll be getting back to ya." Sure enough, Archie rang again the next day. "Mr. Laden, the war is still on! We have managed to git ourselves airborne! We up an' modified Harrigan's ultra-light wit a couple of shotguns in the cockpit, and four byes from the Legion have joined us as well!" Osama was silent for a minute then cleared his throat. "I must tell you Archie that I have 10,000 bombers and 20,000 fighter planes. My military complex is surrounded by laser-guided, surface-to-air missile sites. And since we last spoke, I've increased my army to TWO MILLION!" "Jeysus, Mary and Joseph," said Archie, "I'll have ta call youse back." Sure enough, Archie called again the next day. "Mr. Laden! I am sorry to have to tell you dat we have had to call off dis 'ere war." "I'm sorry to hear that" said Osama. "Why the sudden change of heart?" "Well, sir," said Archie, "we've all sat ourselves down and had a long chat over a bunch of pints, and come to realize dat dere's no way we can feed two million prisoners." CANADIAN CONFIDENCE CANNOT BE SHAKEN ! ! ! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 03:15:04 -0600 (CST) From: Jordie Fulton Subject: Re: Micheal Moore Just curious whether anyone on the list has actually seen this movie; i haven't, and would be interested in hearing a first hand report. From what I can gather, "anti-gun" might be oversimplifying the message a little bit -- it'd be nice to find out for myself, but i doubt if it'll be showing at the local famous players anytime soon. Any first hand reviews? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 03:16:56 -0600 (CST) From: Barry Snow Subject: powder not legally explosive. > From: Vulcun1isback@aol.com Subject: Re: Time to Stockpile ? > > In a message dated 2/14/2003 8:33:13 AM Central Standard Time, owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca > writes: > > > >> You were dead on re "unexplosive ammunition components" - but >> couldn't say it because of your other obligations [if I remember >> correctly]. I posted that to the CFD - it got some attention - >> but I expect it still is on their agenda or proposed legislation. >> If true, reloaders and all shooters should be screaming to >> their MPs. >> >> Richard A. Fritze Barrister & Solicitor >> >> Tel. (780) 941 3809 www.fritze.com > > > > Richard, I wrote a Brief to the Senate Committee over a month ago, > and just recieved confirmation from Ottawa via telephone last week > that they would be sharing my brief with the committee and House > of Commons members. > >snip > I stated that I felt reloading was just as much a part of Canadian > heritage and the shooting sports as target shooting and hunting > itself. All of these things have been passed on from generation to > generation- and thus are a vital part of Canada's Recreational > Shooting heritage. > > I also argued that only powder can be considered a true explosive, > slugs are not ,(and Hollowpoints being considered explosives is > really reaching - and based on expansion,-which has nothing to do > with anything exploding) - so that defination/theory (although > hollowpoints are defined as such under the explosives act) is a > real fallacy , and the true definition of primers can be compared > closer to that of a spark plug, than an explosive. > Powder is not an explosive. It is not legally an explosive and it is not actually an explosive. It is only a deflagrant. Deflagrant only. The test that was done where an explosive appearance occurred was when 100 pounds of powder was ignited on a cement slab and the extreme heat generated caused the cement to "explode" from the moisture in it. Very similar to popcorn. It don't go bang, it go fffttttt... > Primers ignite the powder charge,the powder charge is what contains > the true explosive compositions. (Mind you , a group of 50 or 100 > primers going off simutaneously can cause serious injury.) > > at any rate, I hope many others will also write in to complain about > Bill C-17 or we may just all have to violate another new law, > which will ban reloading,and the possession of any components for > such. > Very true. Since I heard about this stupid amendment, I have started sweeping my gopher 'leavings' into a bag. Instead of dropping the hundreds of rounds of 22 brass needlessly in the field, I save a bag or two to distribute at each stop I make in town or in the city. Little piles or 22 brass at the post office, the bakery, the tire shop, the police station, city hall, where ever. What, are you kidding me? If, by non explosive components, they mean powder they had better be more specific. The brass and the bullets and wait.. reloading components??? bench? brush? lube? dies? press? vise? file? punch? (knife in one case I know of)? They might as well try and ban your hands. Barry ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 10:37:27 -0600 (CST) From: Boris Gimbarzevsky Subject: Re: Pacifism Marc Thibault writes: >If pacifism is not the refusal to fight under any circumstances, then >the term is meaningless and useless for drawing a distinction, and we >need a new word to replace it. Most of us prefer peace to war, but in >the common meaning of the term, this does not make us pacifists. >Sucking the blood out of a word in this fashion is childish play, not >serious discussion. I have to agree with Marc on this point. My understanding of the word "pacifist" is an individual who refuses to use violence to defend themselves should there be no other option. This refusal to use violence must occur in a setting where only the life of the "pacifist" is in jeopardy, and the importance of this point will become clear shortly. Consider a situation where a mugger attacks a person walking alone and makes it clear that regardless of what the person who has been attacked does, they will be killed. A pacifist, as I define the term, would not resist and die. In such a situation, I would consider it appropriate to activate primitive hypothalamic defense programs that every person has (but some people are terrified of letting them loose even when their life is at stake), and either one kills ones attacker or is oneself killed. As Robert Heinlein noted: "An animal so poor in spirit that he won't even fight on his own behalf is already an evolutionary dead end; the best he can do for his breed is to crawl off and die, and not pass on his defective genes." It should be noted that this consideration applies only when the choice is between fighting and certain death; if one has the option to run away from a fight, this constitutes a valid option. The latter strategy may not be as "manly" as standing ones ground against impossible odds and dying, but guess who has the greater probability of passing on their genes. Mike Ackerman has contributed to the confusion when he applies the "pacifist" label to himself, yet makes it very clear that while he is opposed in general to violent means of settling disputes, he will not hesitate to use violence should there be no other option. Sorry Mike, my understanding of the term "pacifist" is that of an absolute rejection of violence. My approach to dispute resolution is not that much different than yours, but there is no way I would consider myself to be a pacifist. Where the lack of utility of pacifism becomes muddled is when one considers groups of individuals. Interestingly, Robert Heinlein also came up a concept of a hierarchy of social organizations which Howard Bloom developed to a much greater extent in "The Lucifer Principle". (Robert Heinlein's may be found in his book "Expanded Universe" in his article "The Pragmatics of Patriotism"). There is no individual evolutionary benefit in an individual sacraficing their lives so that a group of individuals with whom they were associated could survive, yet this is a fundamental tenet of specialized military forces throughout history. There is no absolute requirement that individuals who give up their lives for a groups cause do so in combat, and they may do so in "pacifist" means of conflict resolution. As Sun Tzu noted, "supreme excellence in war is to subdue the enemy without fighting". When one group of humans is threatened by another group of humans, a subset of the individuals in that group may organize to defend the whole group despite the risk to their lives. The most common organization that performs this function in human groups of nation-state size is the military which uses the strategy of killing the enemy before the enemy kills them. There are other options, though, and one of these options is to passively oppose the enemy and to risk ones own life in order to ensure the survival of other members of the attacked group. The individuals who engage in such activities may profess to believe in non-violent methods, but on an organizational level higher than that of inter-individual interactions, the benefits to social groups may be of equivalent magnitude to a solution which involved greater interpersonal violence. Aiding the escape of a group of individuals by holding up a pursuing force with the bodies of a group of non-violent individuals who don't r esist can be isomorphic to the same group of individuals actively fighting the pursuing group. In such cases, we are no longer dealing with individual evolution, but rather group evolution, and primarily groups that are unified by common memes. That explains Rick Lowe's admiration for "pacifists". In his position in the military, at some level he was prepared to die to further the goals of a particular social group as were the "pacifists" he admires, although obviously on his own terms given what he considers essential weaponry to perform a given operation. He and "pacifists" merely had different strategies for solving identical interpersonal problems. IMHO, individuals should be flexible enough to use either a strategy involving violence or a "pacifist" strategy should it be the optimal one. In western societies, one can construct a moral metric which provides a quantitative estimate of the relative goodness of a solution. Avoidance of loss of human life dominates this moral metric, and a solution to a problem which involves no loss of life is greatly preferred to one in which one has to kill a couple of hundred of the opposing side. It seems obvous to me that being flexible in choosing ones approach to a problem w hile minimizing immorality is key in that both hard line machismo and pneumocephalic pacifism excessively limit ones options to find the optimum solution to a problem. Because I like to keep my options open, I can never consider myself to be a pacifist. Boris Gimbarzevsky ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 10:39:13 -0600 (CST) From: "Jim Szpajcher" Subject: France / Bernard Fall - Not exactly on Topic Rick - > Where were the Americans at Dien Bien Phu when French paratroopers knowingly > jumped into a hopeless battle? Bernard Fall, in "Street Without Joy" and "Hell In A Very Small Place" documented the French experience in Indochina. I highly recommend both books to anyone interested in knowing more about that particular situation. One particular exchange in "Street without Joy", demonstrates, to me, the spirit of the French units who continually faced larger forces in the 1951-54 period, which Fall described over and over in his books: The officer/NCO of small outpost along a jungle road/trail asked the exhausted commander of a force moving past his position, trying to disengage from a much larger force of Viet Minh that was pushing them hard: "What can I do for you, sir?" The commander of the larger force said: "Buy me 20 minutes." "We will do that, sir." Fall interviewed personnel from both sides in his account of Dien Bien Phu, and if more Americans read this, they might not be so flippant about the French military tradition. While Americans have Gettysburg and Antietam; Belleau Wood and Chateau Thierry; Iwo Jima, Pelelieu and Okinawa, to understand the concept of mass casualties, the French have Verdun (over 1 million dead) and the Marne (117,000 casualties in one day between the British and French forces) ....and Crecy, and Poitiers, and Agincourt, and Borodino.... The whole reasoning behind the American push against Iraq is so flimsy, that there must be a deeper reason for it. No American administration would admit to being vulnerable in something so basic as energy supplies, and yet that is what has occured, and I feel that this whole campaign is about oil, while proclaiming that this is about freedom from weapons of Mass Destruction (in the same way that the Liberals are working to disarm citizens while proclaiming that the effort is in the cause of public safety). This, for me, is the only logical reason that the Americans have for their relentless push to change out the leadership in a small country that is halfway around the world from them. However, logic is not requisite when it comes to a show of force, so the wildcard in all of this is how the rest of the world - and in particular, those who would take advantage of any setbacks to the American forces - reacts to the Bush/Rumsfeld campaign. We do live in interesting times. Jim Szpajcher ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V5 #775 ********************************** 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.