From: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V6 #592 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 Friday, October 17 2003 Volume 06 : Number 592 In this issue: Rush can beat liberals -- even on drugs Gun control's shaky empirical foundation Judge lifts spending limit on election ads Government beast continues to feast RE: RFC donations Re: NFA CREDIBILITY What to do with Copps? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:34:25 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Rush can beat liberals -- even on drugs http://www.nationalpost.com/utilities/story.html?id=0715E7F4-C379-4EFA-B297-7888BC9EF117 Rush can beat liberals -- even on drugs Ann Coulter National Post Friday, October 17, 2003 So American liberals have finally found a drug addict they don't like. And unlike the Lackawanna Six -- those high-spirited young lads innocently seeking adventure in an al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan -- liberals could find no excuses for Rush Limbaugh. After years of the mainstream U.S. media claiming Rush was a has-been, a nobody, yesterday's news -- the Rush painkiller story was front-page news last week. The airwaves and print media were on red alert with Rush's admission that, after an unsuccessful spinal operation a few years ago, he became addicted to powerful prescription painkillers. Rush Limbaugh's misfortune is apparently a bigger story than his nearly US$300-million radio contract signed two years ago. That was the biggest radio contract in broadcasting history. Yet there are only 12 documents on LexisNexis that reported it. The New York Times didn't take notice of Rush's US$300-million radio contract, but a few weeks later, put Bill Clinton's comparatively measly US$10-million book contract on its front page. Meanwhile, in the past week alone, LexisNexis has accumulated more than 50 documents with the words "Rush Limbaugh and hypocrisy." That should make up for the 12 documents on his US$300-million radio contract. The reason any conservative's failing is always major news is that it allows liberals to engage in their very favourite taunt: Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy is the only sin that really inflames them. Inasmuch as liberals have no morals, they can sit back and criticize other people for failing to meet the standards that liberals simply renounce. At least Rush wasn't walking into church carrying a 10-pound Bible before rushing back to the Oval Office for sodomy with Monica Lewinsky. He wasn't enforcing absurd sexual harassment guidelines while dropping his pants in front of a half-dozen subordinates. (Evidently, Clinton wasn't a hypocrite because no one was supposed to take seriously the notion that he respected women or believed in God.) Rush has hardly been the anti-drug crusader liberals suggest. Indeed, Rush hasn't had much to say about drugs at all since that spinal operation. The Rush Limbaugh quote that has been endlessly recited in the last week to prove Rush's rank "hypocrisy" is this, made eight years ago: "Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs ... And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up." What precisely are liberals proposing that Rush should have said to avoid their indignant squeals of "hypocrisy"? Announce his support for the wide and legal availability of a prescription painkiller that may have caused him to go deaf and nearly ruined his career and wrecked his life? I believe that would have been both evil and hypocritical. Or is it simply that Rush should not have become addicted to painkillers in the first place? Well, no, I suppose not. You've caught us: Rush has a flaw. And yet, the wily hypocrite does not support flaws! In fact, Rush's behaviour was not all that dissolute. There is a fundamental difference between taking any drug -- legal, illegal, prescription, protected by the 21st Amendment or banned by Michael Bloomberg -- for kicks and taking a painkiller for pain. There is a difference morally and a difference legally. While slamming Rush, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz recently told Wolf Blitzer, "Generally, people who illegally buy prescription drugs are not prosecuted, whereas people who illegally buy cocaine and heroin are prosecuted." What would the point be? Just say no to back surgery? I haven't checked with any Harvard law professors, but I'm pretty sure that, generally, adulterous drunks who drive off bridges and kill girls are prosecuted. Ah, but Teddy Kennedy supports adultery and public drunkenness -- so at least you can't call him a hypocrite! That must provide great consolation to Mary Jo Kopechne's parents. I have a rule about not feeling sorry for people worth US$300-million, but I'm feeling sentimental. Evan Thomas wrote a cover story on Rush for Newsweek this week that was so vicious it read like conservative satire. Thomas called Rush a "schlub," "socially ill at ease," an Elmer Gantry, an actor whose "act has won over, or fooled, a lot of people." He compared Rush to the phony TV evangelist Jim Bakker and recommended that Rush start to "make a virtue out of honesty." As is standard procedure for profiles of conservatives, Newsweek gathered quotes on Rush from liberals, ex-wives and dumped dates. Covering himself, Thomas ruefully remarked that "it's hard to find many people who really know him." Well, there was me, Evan! But I guess Newsweek didn't have room for the quotes I promptly sent back to the Newsweek researchers. Thomas also made the astute observation that "Rush Limbaugh has always had far more followers than friends." Needless to say, this floored those of us who were shocked to discover that Rush does not have 20 million friends. So the guy I really feel sorry for is Evan Thomas. How would little Evan fare in any competitive media? Any followers? Any fans? Any readers at all? And he's not even addicted to painkillers! This week, Rush proved his motto: He really can beat liberals with half his brain tied behind his back. © Copyright 2003 National Post ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:34:58 -0600 (CST) From: Jim Powlesland Subject: Gun control's shaky empirical foundation http://www.reason.com/sullum/101003.shtml ReasonOnline October 3, 2003 Shots in the Dark Gun control's shaky empirical foundation Jacob Sullum In November 1988 The New England Journal of Medicine published a study that noted Seattle's homicide rate was higher than Vancouver's and attributed the difference to stricter gun control in Vancouver. Although the study had serious flaws, including the failure to take into account important demographic differences between the two cities, it received generous coverage in two major newspapers known for their sympathy to gun control. The Washington Post covered the report in a 600-word, staff-written story on page A4 under the headline "Impact of Gun Control Indicated in Medical Study." The New York Times story ("Gun Curbs Linked to Homicide Rate") was about the same length, although it was by a stringer and appeared deeper in the A section. The Times made up for those lapses with an editorial about the study later that month. Under the headline "Guns Do Kill People," it said "the study appears to buttress common-sense wisdom about public safety [i.e., our position on gun control]." This month, when a government-appointed panel of experts announced that their comprehensive review of the relevant scientific literature (including the Seattle/Vancouver study) had failed to find evidence that gun control works, The Washington Post gave the story about 200 words in its "Findings" column. The New York Times (D.C. edition) ran fewer than 150 words of an A.P. story on the bottom of page A23, under a tiny headline that gave no indication of the report's conclusions. So far the Times has not run an editorial conceding that the research reviewwhich by a strictly scientific or journalistic reckoning ought to carry considerably more weight than a single inconclusive study"appears to undermine common-sense wisdom about public safety." I'm guessing it won't, even though the report was commissioned by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), usually a gun control booster. It's natural, of course, to highlight information that fits one's preconceptions while downplaying information than doesn't. With that in mind, it's important to note that the CDC panel's review, in addition to criticizing studies purportedly showing that gun control reduces violence, finds fault with economist John Lott's research on the crime-deterring benefits of allowing people to carry concealed firearms. The panelists considered 51 published studies examining seven different kinds of laws, including bans on specific firearms, restrictions on who may own a firearm, and waiting periods for gun purchases. They "found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws." In other words, after more than half a century of local, state, and federal gun control legislation, we still don't know whether these laws do what they're supposed to do. The report's most consistent finding was inconsistent findings: Sometimes gun control is associated with reduced violence, and sometimes it's associated with increased violence. The world is messy, and it can be difficult to control for all the relevant variables when you're trying to determine the impact of a particular law. Not surprisingly, the CDC panel calls for more and better research, and it cautions that "insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness." But it's scandalous that politicians have been legislating in the dark all these years, promising that the gun control solution du jour would save lives when there was no evidence to back up such claims. If gun control laws have any positive effect at all, it must be pretty modest to have escaped documentation so far. How could it be otherwise? The typical gun control measure is laughably inadequate to accomplish its ostensible goal. Regarding criminal background checks, for instance, the CDC panel notes that "denial of an application does not always stop applicants from acquiring firearms through other means." Assuming that a buyer with a disqualifying record is seeking a gun to use in a crime, there are plenty of sources where no questions are asked. According to the report, Americans own some 200 million guns, with around 10 million changing hands every year; retail sales account for less than half of these transactions. Even if gun availability could be dramatically reduced, any restrictions would disproportionately affect law-abiding people. Criminals have no compunction about breaking the law, and they're highly motivated to obtain the tools of their trade, so anything short of a magical spell that makes all guns disappear is not likely to have a noticeable impact on violence. - -- Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason and the author of Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use (Tarcher/Putnam). Copyright 2003 by Creators Syndicate Inc. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:35:23 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Judge lifts spending limit on election ads http://www.nationalpost.com/utilities/story.html?id=EF43105B-88DF-4353-8C48-36F97D3631C9 Judge lifts spending limit on election ads Third-party restriction Chris Wattie National Post Thursday, October 16, 2003 An Ontario judge has thrown out sections of the federal election law dealing with third-party advertising, declaring them unconstitutional and calling them "vague," "ill-defined" and "arbitrary." In a decision released yesterday, Mr. Justice Paul Bentley of the Ontario Court of Justice dismissed charges against the National Citizens' Coalition and struck down sections of the Canada Elections Act, which require anyone who runs political advertisements during an election campaign to register with Elections Canada. The judge ruled that under those provisions of the law "the freedom of expression of third parties is severely compromised and as such [it] is unacceptable." Judge Bentley criticized the $3,000 limit on spending by non-political parties on election advertising, and its requirement that they register with the federal elections commission if they spend more than $500 on advertising. "The spending limit was so low, it amounted to a total ban on expression," he wrote. "The requirements of registration at a $500 threshold likewise amounts to an almost complete ban on freedom of expression." Even the law's definition of "election advertising" was flawed, the judge wrote in his 25-page ruling. "In my view, this term is so vague and ill-defined as to place all third parties at risk of unknowingly breaking the law." Gerry Nicholls, the vice-president of the National Citizens' Coalition, said the law gave politicians and established political parties a monopoly on public debate during election campaigns. "Basically we said: 'Why should any Canadian have to get the government's permission to express a political opinion?' " he said. "Today, the judge agreed with us.... So that's a good victory for us." The coalition, a non-profit group that advocates political freedom, was charged with violating the Act after it broadcast a television advertisement during the 2000 federal election that promoted the group's ongoing battle over the constitutionality of the law. It neither registered with the elections commission nor reported spending more than $500 to produce the ad. The penalty under the law could have included fines of up to $25,000 or as much as five years in jail. However, Mr. Nicholls said the charges were politically motivated. "We knew it wasn't election advertising, but the charges were still brought against us," he said. "The government basically trumped up these charges, because they know how costly it would be for us to defend ourselves in court." He said yesterday's decision was the latest in a series of court victories for the coalition, which has been challenging federal and provincial election spending limits since 1983. "We've been fighting gag laws for more than 20 years," Mr. Nicholls said. "We keep winning, and we hope that at long last that gag laws have no place in a free and democratic society." Spokesmen for Elections Canada said the federal agency was still studying the decision. The elections commission proceeded with charges against the coalition despite an Alberta court's ruling that found the spending restrictions violated the Charter. The Supreme Court of Canada last month announced it will hear an appeal of the Alberta case. Defenders of the law argue that spending caps prevent election campaigns from being controlled by wealthy lobby groups. The Canada Elections Act limits third-party advertising in each constituency to $3,000 per group or $150,000 nationally. Registered political parties can spend up to $12.7-million each. cwattie@nationalpost.com © Copyright 2003 National Post ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:35:49 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Government beast continues to feast http://www.nationalpost.com/utilities/story.html?id=FE21DF8F-4EFE-41FB-8DF2-D461B0EEFF41 Government beast continues to feast Peter Foster Financial Post Thursday, October 16, 2003 The Iltis affair disgraces not merely our government but our political system. Sergeant Robert Short and Corporal Robbie Beerenfenger died in Afghanistan two weeks ago when a land mine ripped through the deathtrap in which they were forced to ride. They died at least partly because of delays in replacing the vehicle. These delays were caused through putting vote-getting "job creation" ahead of safety. These brave men died in a redundant vehicle that also cost three times what it should have because it had been used to "help" Bombardier and thus buy votes in Quebec. When Defence Minister John McCallum sent off Canadian troops to Afghanistan, he declared, "If we put people in harm's way, we have to give our people proper equipment. It is as simple as that." In the wake of the deaths, he claimed that he didn't know anything about the Iltis problems. One hopes that Mr. McCallum at least considered resigning. But of course that wouldn't take care of the larger problem. The universally recognized minimal functions of government -- defence, justice and infrastructure spending -- have either been neglected or corrupted in Canada. We live under the U.S. defence umbrella, our chattering classes whining and ungrateful while our once-proud military crumbles from neglect. Our justice system seems to be less about protecting citizens from violation of their property and person than in handing noisy groups preferential identity "rights." Our infrastructure programs are a disgrace. Money that should have gone to roads and bridges has been misspent on high-profile boondoggles for members of Parliament who, cut out from any real say in government business, scrabble for pork. Also, our political culture has been hijacked by ideologues and unionists who resist the provision of public goods via innovations such as public-private partnerships. As the fundamentals have been forgotten, the main function of the state has become that of wholesale redistribution, not from the "rich" to the "poor" but from everybody to everybody, with hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats in the middle slicing off fat agency fees. This system of universal rip-off does not create a "fair" or "just" society, it creates a society of universal resentment, dependence, entitlement and inefficiency. Medicare crumbles; social security totters; a state education system looks good only against other state systems. Leviathan has not replaced Hobbes' war of all against all, it has become its principal promoter. We are too easily fobbed off with Winston Churchill's dictum that democratic systems are flawed but better than the alternatives. Similarly, the notions that "we get the government we deserve" and that "if we don't vote, we have no right to complain" are mindlessly trotted out to comfort us with our lot, or make us feel personally guilty for the fact that our lot, and the lot of others, is not better. But people should not have to spend huge amounts of time on politics, protecting their ox from being legislatively gored; they should be allowed to get on with their own lives and voluntarily commit themselves to community activities without thinking that the main facilitator of such activity is a government grant. We are threatened by a huge beast that has been growing on our tax dollars. It's primary driving force is not the demands of the electorate but the power hunger of its operatives: politicians, bureaucrats and armies of policy entrepreneurs whose job is to think up new policies that can be peddled to a distracted electorate to gain or retain power. Despite "revolutions," which have allegedly taken government out of intrusive economic management in the past 20 years, government has continued to grow, largely because of the redistributive society. Meanwhile, although the grand delusions of national industrial strategies are said to have passed, we still live with a piecemeal version of the same old world, in which we suffer the relative decline induced by perpetual new "initiatives." This is the democratic world of more or less comfortable servitude that de Tocqueville feared and wrote about in the 19th century. Prime-minister-in-waiting Paul Martin has suggested a "democratic deficit" in Canada. His solution is to provide more parliamentary oversight of spending and more opportunity for parliamentary initiative. But the problem is not lack of parliamentary power. The problem is the unwieldy size and excessive scope of government. Looked at from this perspective, the emphasis on budget deficits, while necessary, has not solved, or even addressed, the more fundamental problem. It has been clearly established that growing government can fund its activities from taxes. Under this approach, government growth will indeed eventually slow, but only because it is killing the economy, and something more important too. The Iltis affair indicates not merely that big democratic government is immoral, but that all democratic government of the type practised in Canada is immoral. Without recognition of that fact, there can be no reform or, more appropriately, revolt. © Copyright 2003 National Post ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:37:55 -0600 (CST) From: "Frank Cochrane" Subject: RE: RFC donations I think Gordon is on to an excellent idea. CUFOA has proven their commitment through action which is what has stopped many people from donating to others such as the NFA. Let us help keep some sort of effective voice going until we have a unified organization in Ottawa. Show the Gov't that we believe in what CUFOA representatives are doing in their actions to prove the invalidity of this unjust law. Frank Cochrane Secretary Musquodoboit Valley Rifle & Revolver Club Nova Scotia frank.cochrane@ns.sympatico.ca 902-673-2059 (home) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:38:30 -0600 (CST) From: Jim Powlesland Subject: Re: NFA CREDIBILITY On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, BOB LICKACZ wrote: > I expect Tomlinson will give up control of the NFA when he > dies, or when the money runs out. (Maybe not even when he dies) I wouldn't be surprised if DAT puts it in his will and appoints Jimmy for life. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:52:25 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: What to do with Copps? http://www.nationalpost.com/utilities/story.html?id=0B8D65AB-78D9-4C3B-AD78-5C40020D3532 What to do with Copps? National Post Editorial Thursday, October 16, 2003 Paul Martin has said little about what he will do when he becomes prime minister. But at the very least, he appears determined to give his government a fresh face. This is to be heartily applauded. We are especially cheered to hear of Mr. Martin's plans for his nominal leadership rival, Heritage Minister Sheila Copps. Ms. Copps, a fixture in Mr. Chrétien's Cabinet and a long-time icon of the Liberal party's left wing, has generated a steady stream of questionable ideas in recent years -- antagonizing Washington with her phobic campaign against what she calls "American cultural imperialism." While her department rates highly in the chic anti-Americanism file, it has clearly acted against Canada's national interests. According to Liberal sources, Ms. Copps will almost certainly be bounced to the backbench once Mr. Martin becomes PM. If she can stay in Parliament, that is: According to reports published in yesterday's Post, Martinites are poised to challenge Ms. Copps for the Liberal nomination in her Hamilton riding. Ms. Copps, meanwhile, has been busy reminding Canadians why it is time for her to go -- planning expensive slap-up confabs and swanning around the world. Last week, it was learned Ms. Copps' department is sponsoring a $7,000-per-head conference on aboriginal culture and tourism in the B.C. resort town of Whistler (a worthy subject perhaps, but not one that justifies the sum being spent). This week, Ms. Copps was in Paris making predictably protectionist noises during a cultural conference sponsored by the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). It should be hoped that Ms. Copps's expected removal from the federal Cabinet will send a strong signal that the Liberal party is no longer giving air time to its anti-American fringe. But Ms. Copps's disappearance won't be sufficient. Her department is infested with Marxist-minded protectionists whose sunny slogans -- "cultural diversity" is their favourite -- conceal deep-seated hostility toward U.S. cultural imports. A top-to-bottom housecleaning is in order, along with a comprehensive review of the mandate of the department. In the meantime, the rumour mill suggests Prime Minister Chrétien is hard at work looking for a taxpayer-financed sinecure for his loyal minister. It appears Ms. Copps has been angling for a soft landing at -- you guessed it -- UNESCO. No doubt, Ms. Copps would feel right at home at the agency's elegant Paris offices. Indeed, its own anti-U.S. bias and bloated bureaucracy will make her feel as if she never left Heritage. UNESCO is a largely ornamental body, and many conservative critics question whether it should even exist. But putting that issue to one side, if Mr. Chrétien feels he has to put Ms. Copps somewhere, UNESCO is probably the most harmless place she could go. The Heritage Minister will be free to rail to her heart's content against "American cultural imperialism" among like-minded souls. Paul Martin's government, meanwhile, will go about the real-world task of mending relations with the United States. © Copyright 2003 National Post ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V6 #592 ********************************** 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@cogeco.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.