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 #835 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, January 16 2004 Volume 06 : Number 835 In this issue: Political Defections and Political Whores Re: jail Re: violence Re: Editor (We doubt the Grits fear gun-toting voters Oscar Lacombe IAMS partners with Humane Society of the US Re: Licensing Vs FAC "Public Safety"? Not Really! Re: Alberta task force starts hearings re: Belinda Stronach Letter to the Editor of the Globe and Mail 16 January 2004 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:53:06 -0600 (CST) From: "Todd Birch" Subject: Political Defections and Political Whores Of late there have been no less than five MPs either cross party lines or opt for sitting as independents. Either way, this is not what their constitunts elected them to do. Sheila Copps would sit for any party that would have her but none seem to be so desperate. The ethical choice would seem to be sitting out one's term wearing the political stripe that got you elected and just prior to a called election, announcing any intended defection or realignment. The unseemly rush of late to change political stripe bespeaks of self serving political opportunism, particularly when the switch is to a party once at the opposite end of the spectrum. Jim Hart, the man who stepped down as MP for Okanagan-Similkameen, accepting a cash buy out in order to create a seat for then party leader Stockwell Day, is a prime example of this behaviour. I was recently contacted by Mr. Hart who was soliciting my support to run against Day in the next election! I was one of several volunteers who worked on behalf of Hart in two federal elections. I declined the offer but in retrospect, I now wish I had offered my services for hire, a paid political hack, rather than a grass roots volunteer foot soldier. Considering the lack of ethics of these political whores, being a political pimp has at least the stamp of honest admission of who and what you are. It is either a reality check as to the nature of politics or my maturation as an elector that brings me to this place of cynical disillusionment, but I cannot be the only one so affected. The percentage of voter turn out in the next federal election will tell the tale. Todd Birch ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:13:36 -0600 (CST) From: B Farion Subject: Re: jail >If you make the penalty far exceed the value of the crime and enforce this >penalty, crime will be reduced. This is taking it to the extreme to show my >point, but if you were to get a year in jail for stealing a loaf of bread, >would you even consider stealing the loaf? Now, if you were to get a >sentence of five years for an assault or a theft against a senior, would >you take that chance? >Bob Boyer >Editor (They might -- never underestimate the stupidity of criminals) > >Hi; > Well, that logic does not always work! You forget that you get free bread in jail and it is warm! Remember a few years back when people busted a window at the local liquor store and helped themselves while waiting for the cops to show up. 6 months in the slammer from November to April! Also violent people never care about the consequences! Seen it myself! California has a problem with to many people in the slammer with over enthusiastic enforcement of 3rd time and you are in for good. Siphoning money from UCLA to warehouse people! > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:14:38 -0600 (CST) From: B Farion Subject: Re: violence >Elofson said even now, a young man in a bar with a gun generally means >trouble. >"Why should we think things were different then?" he said. >The historian said his object is not to sensationalize the violence, but to >tell the truth. >It's our heritage, it's our roots," > Why does a person with a gun "allways" mean trouble! I have seen some pretty violent jerks in bars without guns! Like using a broken pool cue as a spear! Would have been nice if a bystander could have dispatched him before he terrorized a few peaceful imbibers! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 15:01:40 -0600 (CST) From: anly Subject: Re: Editor (We doubt the Grits fear gun-toting voters I seem to remember the government trying to register a whole spectrum of nefarious types; including career criminals,sex offenders and and gun owners under one umberella legislation-The government felt that they had a lot in common and of course it would be nice if the public would start associating gun owners with those other types. When the bill was in danger of being defeated it was split and the group deemed the most dangerous was targeted/ Gun owners, apparently,were the most dangerous of the bunch. Perhaps the government is correct.Crooks and sex wackos present very little threat to beaurocratic structures; only to the individual, who does not seem to matter much. Regards/ andy "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1 > PUBLICATION: The Ottawa Sun > DATE: 2004.01.16 > EDITION: Final > SECTION: Comment > PAGE: 14 > ILLUSTRATION: photo of BRYAN MARCHMENT Knocks knees > BYLINE: OTTAWA SUN > COLUMN: Letters to the Editor > > Everyone has overlooked the obvious about the gun registry and the > decriminalization of marijuana: The federal government is more afraid of an > armed voter who is cheesed off than a stoned voter who doesn't give a damn > about what goes on > Mark Slobodian > Toronto > Editor (We doubt the Grits fear gun-toting voters, and if the letters we > get from advocates of marijuana decriminalization are anything to go by, > pot use doesn't lead to indifference) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 17:00:10 -0600 (CST) From: Gordon@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca, Hitchen@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Oscar Lacombe Brief Update on Oscar Lacombe - ----------------------------- A great start! In the first week 544 people sent the One-Click letter asking their MLA, Ralph Klein and the whole Alberta cabinet to stop prosecuting Oscar Lacombe for defying the gun registry. In one week almost 15,000 One-Click messages went to Alberta's political decision-makers, and our sources inside the Alberta legislature say it got huge attention. Provincial Attorney General David Hancock is under mounting pressure from MLAs and cabinet colleagues to explain himself. Poor Dave. He must either admit he was wrong and withdraw his consent for the charges against Lacombe, or continue insisting (against all evidence) this is Ottawa's baby and there's nothing Alberta can do. On Wednesday Lacombe's lawyer, Richard Fritze, complained to the judge that the reversal of Alberta's prosecution policy constitutes "abuse of process." The judge has agreed to consider it, and Alberta's prosecuting agent, Michelle Doyle, has until February 13 to reply. This delays the Lacombe verdict, which is good. It means the pressure on Dave "there's-nothing-I-can-do" Hancock can keep growing. If Alberta stays the Criminal Code charges (something Hancock can do tomorrow), it's a black eye for Ottawa and the gun registry. The feds will then have to let Oscar go, or charge him themselves under the Firearms Act, exposing it to a Charter challenge. We are in touch with several individuals who have presented detailed "yes-or-no" questions through their MLAs to force Hancock to answer some basic questions. We'll keep you posted on anything he says. This campaign is at a crucial stage. Oscar needs more people to send the one-click letter to MLAs and cabinet ministers next week. We're going to start inserting an Oscar Lacombe flyer in Alberta weekly newspapers to keep the One-Click letters flowing in to the Alberta cabinet. This will take a couple weeks to have an impact, so let's keep up the momentum in the meantime by forwarding this email to those who might be interested in sending a letter. To send your letter, simply go to www.citizenscentre.com/oscar.html NEXT WEEK'S GOAL - 250 more letters!!! Which is over 6,000 more messages!!! Postscript: To prevent abuse, the One-Click program allows a particular campaign letter to be sent only once from any e-mail address. If you have off-line friends who want to help, open a free hotmail address for them on your own computer and get them involved. - - Link Byfield Citizens Centre for Freedom and Democracy Suite 203, 10441 - 178 Street Edmonton, AB T5S 1R5 Phone: 780-481-7844 Toll Free: 1-866-666-6768 Fax: 780-481-9983 contact@citizenscentre.com The Oscar Lacombe Campaign www.citizenscentre.com/oscar.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 17:18:52 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: IAMS partners with Humane Society of the US Send your message to IAMS: http://www.iams.com/en_US/jhtmls/consumer_care/sw_TalkToUsIntro_page.jhtml?l i=en_US&bc=I&pti=TU Iams Partners With Leading Anti-Hunting Organization- (01/09) National The Iams Company, maker of Iams and Eukanuba pet foods, has joined forces with the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the nation's largest anti-hunting organization. The company is helping sponsor the Pet Fest America tour, a series of animal shows in major metropolitan areas, nationwide. The shows were developed by HSUS. They debuted in early 2003 and will continue through April 2004. "Sportsmen, and in particular sporting dog owners, understand the threat HSUS poses to hunting, field trialing and other activities," said Bud Pidgeon, president of the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance. "Iams has fallen into the same trap as some other businesses and it needs to be educated." Companies such as General Mills, Accor Hotels, Pet Safe, Sears, and Ace Hardware ended relationships with HSUS after thousands of sportsmen levied strong protest. "The Pet Fests are basically pet owner education and welfare events and also serve to educate and entertain consumers," Kelly Vanasse, Iams associate director of external affairs told the Alliance. "We also sponsor Ducks Unlimited, AKC and other events. We try to strike a balance." Iams clearly doesn't understand how sportsmen will view its support for the nation's largest anti-hunting organization. "We are currently fighting HSUS attempts to ban dove hunting in Wisconsin, bear hunting in Maine and Alaska, and other anti-hunting threats around the country," said Pidgeon. "Iams is adding legitimacy to HSUS's efforts." The National Animal Interest Alliance was among those who alerted the Alliance of the issue. Take Action! Sportsmen across the nation should contact Iams and educate them about HSUS's goals to end hunting, fishing, trapping and other forms of animal use. Contact President Jeffery P. Ansell, The Iams Company, 7250 Poe Ave., Dayton, OH 45414. Phone (937) 898-7387. Fax (937) 264-7264. Toll Free (800) 675-3849. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 17:31:18 -0600 (CST) From: "Al Muir" Subject: Re: Licensing Vs FAC > Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 11:24:45 -0600 (CST) > From: Rick > Subject: Re: Licensing Vs FAC > > "Al Muir" wrote: > > The United States have a constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. > Theoretically. Of course, tell that to people living in Washington DC. > When a right is only available to certain people - conditional upon their > employment, the people they know, or what part of the country they live in > - - do > you really have a right? > You can argue "God given", but certainly not codified. Rick if you go back and read what I wrote you will find that I said their right was tenuous. I hope not to many missed my point. The difference between them and us is that they will none the less continue to fight for it rather than surrender it without a whimper as many of us appear to be willing to do > > That right is continually subjected to challenges as to its validity and > > intent. There it is, you put it on your post yourself > > Do Canadians have the right to firearms ownership? The English Bill of > Rights > > provided the right to English citizens. > The Devil's Advocate says that is not correct. > The English Bill of Rights provided the right to PROTESTANTS, not all English > citizens. I quote: > "That the subjects which are PROTESTANTS, may have arms for their defence > suitable to their conditions, AND AS ALLOWED BY LAW." > There are a number of conditions and qualifiers to that right. First, you have > to be Protestant - I'm not; are you? Second, it has to be allowed by law - > which in both Britain and in Canada it apparently is not at this time. Yes I am a protestant and yes at this point my 308 Browning BLR is still allowed by law. It has not been deemed prohibited to this point but if we continue to roll over without a fight as we have been doing it is only a matter of time before it is. > Now, is it REALLY a right when you can only exercise it if you happen to > belong > to a specific religion? What if freedom of speech only belonged to > Presbyterians? Then good men and women would fight for the right rather then rolling over and wining about not having it .> Furthermore, the Bill of Rights also said only Protestants could hold > political > office and form governments: "that all and every person and persons that > is, are > or shall be reconciled to, or shall hold communion with, the See or church of > Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be > excluded... or to have, use, or exercise any regal power, authority, or > jurisdiction within the same". At the very least, it said Catholics could not > hold positions of power, authority, or jurisdiction - or sit in Parliament: > "An > act for the more effectual preserving the King's person and government, by > disabling papists from sitting in either House of Parliament. Insert my last sentence here > The problem with this, of course, is you can't pick and choose which rights > are > acceptable verbatim, and which ones can legitimately be ignored. Our governments and courts do just that all the time If the > English > Bill of Rights has force of law and guarantees the right to firearms > ownership, > then it is equally authoritative that no Catholic may sit in any Parliament. > Who's prepared to argue that Catholics are excluded from public office, > because > the English Bill of Rights is authoritative over current legislation? Not I Rick, but others, notably Catholics may assist you in arguing the point if you wish to take up the task of having the injustice against them corrected.. I believe if you reread my submission you will see that governments and the highest courts review their decisions over time. > > The fact that judges of the Supreme Court of Canada are appointed opens > it up > > to questions of its impartiality in the interpretation of these rights. > I remain a little puzzled as to why people question the impartiality and > fairness of courts who are appointed rather than elected - but apparently > think > judges elected as we do Members of Parliament will exhibit an impartiality and > fairness that Members of Parliament clearly do not. Judges have political leanings. Theory is always superior to practice. Our hope is that pragmatism will not dilute the original intention to badly. > > That same court has revisited past Supreme Court decisions and has revamped > > them in light of current social conditions thereby demonstrating the > > subjectivity of their decisions. > I'd be interested in a few references to Supreme Court decisions where the > Court > has reversed itself on earlier decisions. Rick you will have to go back to the issue when it previously posted on the digest. I unfortunately do not have the time to assist you in that particular matter in relation to specifics. If you do take the time I would appreciate your providing it to myself, as our discussion points out the possible benefits of expansion of my original post. > > We do have a right to own firearms even if current judicial, political and > > social conditions do not favor it. > I agree that we have a God/natural given right to own whatever means are > appropriate and effective to ensure our security and those of our family and > others we care about. I do not agree this right is codified in the English > Bill > of Rights or any other legislation. Covered above > > Separate from these written rights is the fact that Canadians have > > traditionally owned firearms without benefit of licensing. In fact, they > have > > done so for the duration of the existence of this nation up until the > > implementation of the Firearms Act. If it did not require a license, was it > > not, in effect, a right? > No it was not. There are many activities in Canada that went on prior to their > becoming covered by licensing - that has never caused them to be recognized as > rights. Recognition is the exact problem Rick.You somehow have the impression that rights are something that are written and immutable when in fact they are ideals that require continuous struggle to maintain. You have simply pointed out that there are activities that people do not fell strongly enough about to fight for > > The fact that many organizations, that exist to protect the ownership of > > firearms and the hunting activities that occur with them, would > surrender the > > right so readily demonstrates their lack of suitably to defend against > > further encroachments on gun ownership. > That statement presumes that a codified right exists - and I don't see any > evidence that such a right exists. From my comments above you can infer that codified rights are often times not worth the paper they are written on. This includes the English Bill of Rights and the US right to bear arms and Canadian property rights. Leading us back to the problem that rights are ideals that are subject to current public, government, and judicial interpretation. Unless we're prepared to argue at the same > time that all Catholics must be expelled from public office, of course... > If we're not prepared to demand all Catholics be expelled from public > office as > the English Bill of Rights demands while we're demanding the right for > Protestants to bear arms - subject to laws, of course - then we are > demonstrating a lack of suitability to apply the law with equality and > fairness. I have already been over this > We already have enough people out there cherrypicking what few rights we have > left without adding to their number. Rick we have no permanent rights we only have what we can take from the collective when we can. What that is today may not necessarily be what it is tomorrow. > > Public opinion as the Supreme Court of Canada has demonstrated is fluid. As > > licensing has not been proven to enhance public safety their job is to > > appraise the public of the situation and reject with all the resources at > > their disposal this unnecessary encroachment. > Wrong. The position of the SCC is NOT to educate the public on any one > personal > opinion regarding laws. That is simply in error. > Nor is it their job to cherrypick historic Acts and Legislation, enforcing one > particular part that some special interest group likes, while ignoring other > sections of the same acts. It's all or nothing; take your pick Rick, please reread what I wrote. I was not referring to the Supreme Court in these comments I was referring to the "many organizations". ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 21:13:53 -0600 (CST) From: Robert LaCasse Subject: "Public Safety"? Not Really! The following, is an example of the usenet messages I get from Cops. It all seems to verify where they stand, in regards to their masquerade of allegations of "Public Safety" Gungrab concernment issue: - ------------------------------ To: vampire@istar.ca Subject: Re: Police Invasion Tactics From: excop42198@aol.com (Excop42198) Date: 17 Nov 2003 05:06:46 GMT >"In interest of >Officer Safety" Well, that IS all that matters. I didn't give a fuck if YOU went home at the end of my shift, just if me and my brother officer's did. ~~~ Q: What's the only thing worse than criminals? A: Their lawyers. - ------------------------------ Triad Productions-Fantalla(tm)~EZine~ParaNovel WWW >>> http://conspiracy.at/r_lacasse offnet>http://pages.istar.ca/~vampire/contact.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 21:17:19 -0600 (CST) From: "Dale Blue" Subject: Re: Alberta task force starts hearings More information can be found about the provincial task force hearings at http://www.gov.ab.ca/albertaincanada/ This is an opportunity for Albertans to reinforce to the province that federal firearms legislation is a big and important issue. I have committed to a presentation at Wainwright on the topic "federal firearms legislation", not quite a "firewall" topic but important. The presentation will be interesting. Albertans, please check the website and commit to making a presentation in your area. Dale Blue RFOA > Dates for Alberta's "firewall committee" tour > - Jan. 15 -- Hinton > - Jan. 27 -- Grande Prairie > - Jan. 28 -- Peace River > - Jan. 29 -- Fort McMurray > - Feb. 3 -- Medicine Hat > - Feb. 4 -- Red Deer > - Feb. 5 -- Lethbridge > - Feb. 10 -- Drumheller > - Feb. 11 -- St. Paul > - Feb. 12 -- Wainwright > - Feb. 26 -- Edmonton > - March 4 -- Calgary > > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 21:20:30 -0600 (CST) From: paul chicoine Subject: re: Belinda Stronach As are many people, I am a tad suspicious when someone with a lot of money and connections but little political experience steps up to the leadership plate of a newly minted political party. This seems a little desperate, an attempt to add some wow to what is shaping up to be a clone of the liberal leadership. These suggestions about Stronach's morality however are just over the edge. She is an unknown quantity. Lets see what she has to add to the debate. Assuming the platform remains acceptable to the stated political cause of this forum, the requirement is for a candidate who can take votes across the country. The goal is to win the election. Realize, it wasn't that long ago that Harper was getting flack from this digest for his original stand on the Firearms Act. Things change. __________ Paul Chicoine Non Assumsit Contract : All Rights Reserved : Without Prejudice ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 21:26:50 -0600 (CST) From: "Mark L Horstead" Subject: Letter to the Editor of the Globe and Mail 16 January 2004 Arn Snyder is not just a "a Canadian, a gun owner and a retired police officer" as he describes himself in his letter of 16 January 2004 ("Selective gun numbers") - he is a long-time supporter of the Coalition for Gun Control, an anti-gun-owner lobby not particularly well-known for logic, accuracy, or truth and funded to a large degree from tax dollars. His letter is especially interesting because letters from ordinary citizens supporting this colossal failure have become extremely rare. Only a handful of hardcore zealots or individuals with Justice Department connections or a personal stake in it ever have letters printed these days, as more and more people realize the extent of the lie that the Liberal government and shills like Arn have been feeding them for so long. Like Arn, I too "want our public institutions to get the resources needed to create a safer environment for all" but this programme does not do that as recurring incidents in Toronto and elsewhere regularly demonstrate. He may well believe that "the gun registry is ... simple and effective" but that is as far from reality as one can get. A policeman with a far better reputation than Mr Snyder, none other than Chief Julian Fantino, is on record as holding the opposite opinion. I submit that Chief Fantino is far better placed to comment on the value of Arn's pet project. I do agree with him when he says that "mistakes have been made in its implementation" - the biggest one was its implementation in the first place. Never have the Canadian public paid so much for so little. If Arn Snyder and like-minded individuals and groups like it so much despite its cost and uselessness, let them pay for it. I'm fed up with my money being wasted in this fashion. Cancel it now. Put the money towards beefing up our police, and perhaps a registry for the 130,000 real criminals currently under firearms prohibition orders for good and valid reason. Why should honest citizens have to report changes of address and personal property when these crooks don't? Who's the bigger threat? Mark L Horstead 148 Thoms Crescent Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 1E1 905-715-5838 ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V6 #835 ********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Moderator's e-mail address: mailto:moderator@hitchen.org 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.