From: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V7 #966 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 Sunday, April 10 2005 Volume 07 : Number 966 In this issue: My letter to the Montreal Gazette My letter to the Edmonton Sun My letter to the Halifax Chronicle-Herald [COLUMN] Ask not for whom the gate tolls ... [LETTER] More scandals loom large for government [LETTER] Fit Grits with ankle monitors re-CFD V7 #965-Should Harper topple the govt Re: Ed/Re: Forest Devastation by Uncontrolled Ungulates Justice bid rigging The end Re: re-CFD V7 #965-Should Harper topple the govt Property rights Demetrick - Laskin Re: Demetrick - Laskin Terrifying Incident [COLUMN] Liberal fortunes tied to Harper ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 12:14:24 -0600 (CST) From: "Bruce Mills" Subject: My letter to the Montreal Gazette Just submitted, not yet printed. Have you written a letter today? - ----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce Mills To: Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 1:36 PM Subject: Re: Man faces 10 charges in shooting: Dwayne Joseph is accused of shooting the teen once in the leg, on March 29 at the bus shelter in the Fairview mall parking lot. In 1996, Joseph was prohibited from possessing a firearm for 15 years, for shooting a single mother to death. In 2003, he was also prohibited from possessing a firearm for 10 years, for commiting three armed robberies in Montreal. One must wonder what the point of these kinds of prohibition orders is, when criminals like Joseph simply ignore them like they did the laws they originally broke. Is it any wonder that criminals don't fear our Justice system, and run rampant through our communities? When will our politicians realize that penalizing and persecuting law abiding gun owners doesn't work, and simply diverts precious resources away from actually holding actual criminals responsible for their criminal acts? Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 12:15:06 -0600 (CST) From: "Bruce Mills" Subject: My letter to the Edmonton Sun Just submitted, not yet printed. Have you written a letter today? - ----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce Mills To: Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 2:13 PM Subject: Re: Slain Mountie's mom slams system Grace Johnston is quite correct in stating that the dangers faced by law enforcement, not to mention the average citizen, are "mostly because of the failure and inadequacies of the justice system in not implementing the laws we already have". This, however, isn't just an "implementation" problem - it's a political problem. It is the liberal ideology behind the system that is at fault: lax treatment of youth who break the law; conditional sentencing that allows hardened criminals to serve their "time" in the community; statutory release; no enforcement of parole, probation, or other orders of the Court; plea bargaining which trades away serious charges for paltry sentences; and the lack of courtrooms, Judges, and Crown prosecutors to try these cases as they should be. Our justice system has indeed become a "criminal" justice system. What we need instead is a "citizen" justice system. Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 12:15:16 -0600 (CST) From: "Bruce Mills" Subject: My letter to the Halifax Chronicle-Herald Just submitted, not yet printed. Have you written a letter today? - ----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce Mills To: Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 1:49 PM Subject: Re: Who really owns your property? Garth Turner poses some very important questions about our right to own, use, and dispose of our private property as we see fit. However, I must take exception to one of his statements; Mr. Turner writes that "Restoring property rights will not allow people to", among other things, "bear firearms". Why should this right be denied to the law abiding citizen? It is exactly the sovereign right of the individual to keep and bear arms that ultimately protects all the others. Carrying a gun on your person for self defence protects the individual, and others, from the predations of criminals against their person or property. Not only that, it also serves to keep our elected representatives from usurping more authority than they are entitled to. That is why it is always the tyrant's first move - to disarm the citizenry. Then they can move on to strip them of their other rights, not to mention their property, and their very lives. Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 13:28:32 -0600 (CST) From: "Bruce Mills" Subject: [COLUMN] Ask not for whom the gate tolls ... http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Ottawa/Douglas_Fisher/2005/04/09/98 9953.html Ask not for whom the gate tolls ... By DOUGLAS FISHER -- Sun Ottawa Bureau Are the Martin Liberals done for, given the latest tawdry evidence of large-scale corrupt practices in Quebec? Maybe! But my hindsight tells me that the Liberals could still come out of this one with a majority government. How, you ask? By playing again the card they've flashed so often -- the unity card! Most Quebecers won't swallow this; voters in Ontario may. Despite much incompetence and far-from-honest politics over the past 12 years in office, our governing party continues to be indispensable for many. And familiar as I am with this, it has bothered me -- and never more so since Paul Martin maundered into the highest office and began adding to a string of dozy failures which he (as finance minister) and Jean Chretien racked up. For examples, see the costly shambles of the national gun registry, the relic helicopters, the used submarines, the government's cocked-up response to the Kyoto Accord or the frustrations all round from Chretien's "long goodbye." Twice during my half-century of following federal and Ontario politics, it seemed public opinion had caught up to and rejected our governing party. See the elections of 1958 and 1984, in which the Conservatives ran up over 200 seats. Both times, there were wide assumptions the Liberal Party was cooked. Yet the Liberals came booming back, the first time within six years; the second time within nine. These recuperative powers of the Liberals have often led me to ask citizens, randomly, why. Their opinions run like this: "They know how to run the system." Or, "They're not extreme." Or, "The other guy is so scary," or more specifically, "They can handle Quebec." Or, "Their leaders have been the strongest." Surely, many readers will say such views of Liberal virtues will crumble when the full scope and sleaziness now being revealed at Justice John Gomery's Adscam inquiry is laid out before them. Since Confederation, tollgating has been practiced at all levels of government -- a much-ignored, seldom-punished crime. It's nothing more or less than a well-organized skimming back by the party in office of a percentage of what individuals and companies servicing government departments and agencies receive for such work. From my knowledge of tollgating, it is often practised by people who are supporters but not employees of the party in power. These so-called "bagmen" are provided with lists of individuals or companies who've served the government and been paid, and they inform their target of such a link as they ask for financial support. Sometimes politicians take part. For example, almost 50 years ago a top executive of Domtar told me how Maurice Duplessis, then premier of Quebec, tollgated the pulp and paper company, each year inviting him for a visit, then handing him a summary of provincial lands harvested by Domtar and below it a sum of money -- the annual toll -- for which the exec had a signed cheque ready. We know that the wide prevalence of tolling exasperated Rene Levesque, Quebec's premier from 1976-85. His Parti Quebecois legislated what it thought would end tollgating and other practices under the broad heading of political patronage. There was a greater emphasis on external audits, tighter rules on partisan disclosure, and changes to electoral laws which limited party spending and reimbursed a portion of candidates' costs. Such reforms caught on across the country, and ever since the stock line has been that the PQ made politics in Quebec, at all levels, as above-board as one gets in Canada. But new evidence at the Gomery inquiry (of ad agency workers paying kickbacks to the PQ) would seem to indicate otherwise. Opinion polling will soon let us know whether a majority of Canadians are going to judge the Liberals for their massive boondoggling in Quebec, and so trigger their subsequent slaughter in a general election. But -- as the Liberals will tell us -- who else can keep the provinces together? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 13:41:28 -0600 (CST) From: "Bruce Mills" Subject: [LETTER] More scandals loom large for government http://www.canoe.ca/CalgarySun/editorial.html More scandals loom large for government NOW THAT the cat is out of the bag so to speak on the sponsorship inquiry, further testimony can only reinforce and provide more stunning details of the unethical activities of the federal Liberal party. Given the slick TV ads and other media employed by the Martin Liberal government during the last election, obviously produced by some ad agencies with taxpayer money, one really has to wonder how a $200,000 program such as the gun registry can balloon to almost $2 billion? Not to forget "secret" Foundations currently receiving millions if not billions of tax dollars and one really wonders if the current scandal is only those who have been caught... so far? Rick Plesnik (Turn the page and read Greg Weston's column. AdScam is just the tip of the Liberal corruption iceberg.) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 13:42:10 -0600 (CST) From: "Bruce Mills" Subject: [LETTER] Fit Grits with ankle monitors http://www.canoe.ca/CalgarySun/editorial.html Fit Grits with ankle monitors THE TESTIMONY of ad executive Jean Brault is most instructive. Our tax dollars, long confused by the federal Liberal party as its own money, were funneled into kickback heaven. There can be no doubt Paul Martin, finance minister and No. 1 Quebec Liberal at the time, must have known the gist of the malfeasance afoot. To say otherwise is to admit complete incompetence. When Justice Gomery finally reports and the courts have spoken to the guilt or innocence of those involved, taxpayers may foot the bill for parliamentary technicians to work overtime. The House of Commons is experiencing audio interference problems now with MPs' use of "Blackberries." What manner of static will issue from ankle-monitoring bracelets worn by convicted members? Tom Empey Belleville, Ont. (They deserve jail sentences, not conditional ones.) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 17:33:43 -0600 (CST) From: cody /wendy siderfin Subject: re-CFD V7 #965-Should Harper topple the govt I hate to rain on anybodies parade,but unless Harper can carry Ontario & the Maritimes(which I doubt),the rest of the population might as well whistle Dixie.I may be wrong...But I doubt it! Regards to all-Cody ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 18:10:01 -0600 (CST) From: Alfred Hovdestad Subject: Re: Ed/Re: Forest Devastation by Uncontrolled Ungulates Hello Ed: If these are the reports that I think they are, we have a link to the at www.rfcsask.ca - under Southwick Associates: Southwick Associates of Fernandina Beach, Florida has put together a number of reports concerning the economical impact of hunting and fishing. We have two of their reports here: http://www.rfcsask.ca/HuntingEconomicImpact2001.pdf and http://www.rfcsask.ca/PCLHuntingAndTrapping.pdf. Please visit their website (http://www.southwickassociates.com) for more reports like these. Alfred ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 18:10:33 -0600 (CST) From: "ross" Subject: Justice bid rigging Brault tells a tale pof having a contract extended with respect to the gun registry by paying off the justice department. Who got the alleged 100k that was being paid, and who in justice rubber stamped the request and extended the contract. The justice department is DIRTY, and they expect to maker laws that govern us. What freaking hypocrits. The way Anne and all the Liberal bunch are protestijng so much, there has got be more smoking guns. Why should we in the RFC register a damn thing let alone our guns if Justice can break the law. Good for them...good for us. Screw the registry, and screw the justice department. They cannot possibly come after those who have not registered until they clean out their own house, and that will take a while. Justice has zero credibility. Wonder if Wendy and the coalition for gun control figures into any of this. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 18:10:53 -0600 (CST) From: "ross" Subject: The end ever listen to the doors? "This is the end...my beautiful friend the end. well this is the end of the Liberal party of Canada. I predict this party will self destruct within the next 8 months. Sleeze, corruption led by the PMO right on down to the liberal workers who run the party. If I were a MP, i would want to seriously distance myself from these criminal adventures and stay as far away from the Liberal leader paul martin, and anyone remotely associated with this illegal money laundering scheme. Liberal MP's should be running scared at this time because each new day of Gomery brings new revelations of fraud perpetrated by various government officials, their staff, party FAITHFUL AND A HOST OF OTHER SUSPECTS. True there has been no trial for them, but what reason would Breault have to lie. He is comming clean, and those who say wait until the report comes out, are whistling through the graveyard. The taxpayers of canada have been mugged, raped and robbed by the Liberal party of canada and by extension the Liberal ruling government. We have been set up and played for the suckers we are. 51% of Candians are saying let Parliament fall, call an election. Waiting for Gomery to finish is a non starter...let Gomery continue during the election and let the chips fall where they may. I understand there are still some jails with room left in them in Toronto and Kingston. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 18:11:55 -0600 (CST) From: "jim davies" Subject: Re: re-CFD V7 #965-Should Harper topple the govt Bottom line is that as appeasers always react to threats [and the Lieberals are truly a threat to democracy] tangentially, virtually any excuse [or a lack of an excuse] will "enable" the herd voters that empower the Lieberals to vote, once again, for the Lieberals. And, they will, as ever, blame everyone for "forcing" them to do it. That's why you see all the bilge in the media about "not forcing" an election. If the Conservatives "force" an election the media will kneecap them immediately, to the vast relief of Ontarians who will then flock to the polls in righteous wrath to punish them. [of course if they do not force an election they may also be punished at the polls...] If the Bloc [you know, the ones who would be called traitors in a real democracy] forces an election somehow it will be a] blamed on the conservatives and/or b] pointed to as proof that Quebec must be further appeased. And, of course, this will "prove" that the Lieberals will have to be re-elected because "only the Lieberals can save us from Quebec seperation.." So runs the logic of appeasement. > > I hate to rain on anybodies parade,but unless Harper can carry Ontario & > the Maritimes(which I doubt),the rest of the population might as well > whistle Dixie.I may be wrong...But I doubt it! Regards to all-Cody ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:14:18 -0600 (CST) From: Lee Jasper Subject: Property rights Following from Garth Turner's article titled "Who really owns your property?" Local sage citizen says what's the fuss? In a discussion about ownership, title, deeds, etc. the wag comments, "Ownership? I suggest that all one possesses is short term rental or squatters rights with respect to land and other real property." This is never more evident then when one traces land ownership through all who have owned it, farmed it, logged it, recreated on it, lived in or on it, etc. Wag argues that 'ownership' is largely a psychological issue. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 20:13:43 -0600 (CST) From: Lee Jasper Subject: Demetrick - Laskin Thanks to Rick, Bruce, Karl, Ed and Al for the discussion re Don Demetrick vs. Bora Laskin and our Rights - real, invisible or imagined. I recall that Blupete had some thoughts re these matters. See Rights: Not Absolute but Very Nearly so." Fine job, through your discussion we 'all' learn and benefit. The law is an 'interesting' beast and often works in less than entirely 'rational' ways, or at least in ways that lack logic to all, more than some of the time. I have recently had experience with the vagrancy's of 'possessory title', when and how it applies, and when and where it does not. I have also witnessed the results of 'the lawyer who acts for himself has a fool for a client' phenomenon. It's darned easy to seduce oneself into believing the darndest things. The issue becomes whether or not one's rationale holds for others. It becomes akin to the psychotic who looks around at those giving him strange glances and declares, "Who me? I'm not the 'one' who's crazy." Certainly, I've seen eyes roll and heads shake at public meetings when a 'firearms activist' speaking on owners' rights, starts with: The Magna Carta of 1215 gave it to our British ancestors, and that was followed by the English Bill of Rights in 1627, which entrenched the right. So did the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Canada signed. And the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights added further protection. (Borrowed from Garth Turner). Don't think we've converted many. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 20:36:05 -0600 (CST) From: "Bruce Mills" Subject: Re: Demetrick - Laskin - ----- Original Message ----- From: Lee Jasper To: Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 10:13 PM Subject: Demetrick - Laskin > Certainly, I've seen eyes roll and heads shake at public meetings when a > 'firearms activist' speaking on owners' rights, starts with: The Magna > Carta of 1215 gave it to our British ancestors, and that was followed by > the English Bill of Rights in 1627, which entrenched the right. So did > the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which > Canada signed. And the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights added further > protection. (Borrowed from Garth Turner). Don't think we've converted > many. Well, just where do they think our rights came from, then? Do they think that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was the alpha and the omega and the full list and extent of our rights? That nothing existed prior to the Charter, and that the Charter negates and replaces a thousand years of English Common Law? That way lies madness. Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 21:09:43 -0600 (CST) From: "Bruce Mills" Subject: Terrifying Incident http://www.pulse24.com/News/Top_Story/20050410-006/page.asp Terrifying Incident April 10, 2005 Police are on the hunt for a person who opened fire at one of the city's busiest intersections Sunday afternoon. Shots rang out just before 5pm near the bustling Yonge and Dundas area causing terrified pedestrians and shoppers to duck for cover. There are reports that as many as four people were shot, but none of them have life threatening injuries. "I was walking on the street and we heard about five shots, pop off really loud and everybody in the street ran and scurried and we turned around we seen one guy firing back at a van," one witness, who only wanted to be identified as Rob, said. Police are now trying to track down the shooter, who apparently left a shoe behind as he scrambled to get away from the scene. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 21:42:27 -0600 (CST) From: "Bruce Mills" Subject: [COLUMN] Liberal fortunes tied to Harper http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Artic le_Type1&c=Article&cid=1112997010908&call_pageid=968332188774&col=9683501164 67 Apr. 9, 2005. 08:29 AM Liberal fortunes tied to Harper PM done if Tories do well in Ontario THOMAS WALKOM It's true that this week's revelations from the Gomery inquiry can only hurt Prime Minister Paul Martin's Liberals. The apocalyptic headlines surrounding the latest instalment of the sponsorship scandal ("explosive," "bombshell," "smoking gun") do reflect some level of reality. But in battleground Ontario at least, a good many voters made up their mind about both Martin and his Liberals long ago - certainly well before the secret testimony of ad man and alleged fraud artist Jean Brault was made public on Thursday. They are sick to death of the federal Liberals and would desperately like to find some other party they can vote for. And while I suspect that few actively dislike Martin, I'm also picking up a growing feeling of disappointment in him - a sense that he's a fine fellow, an able finance minister, but not someone who's up to the top job. For these Ontarians, the real issue is not how much farther the Liberals fall. Rather it is whether they can ever be persuaded to trust the man most see as the only plausible alternative, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper. This is pretty much where this province was during last year's election campaign. It wanted to kick the Liberals out of office. But at the last minute, it couldn't bring itself to vote for Harper. If I'm right (and I have to confess that this analysis is not based on scientific polling), then there are interesting implications for the two men. The first is that Martin may not be able to disentangle himself from the sponsorship scandal. True, most of the alleged abuses happened when Jean Chrétien was prime minister. True also that it was Martin who called the public inquiry under Justice John Gomery. People understand both of these things. But in the end, neither matters. People also understand that the same Liberal party has been running the country since 1993. And while those intimate with Liberal politics see sharp distinctions between Martin and Chrétien supporters - particularly in the scandal-ridden Quebec wing - to most people, they are all the same bunch. In any case, wasn't Paul Martin virtually Chrétien's co-prime minister? That's how the then-finance minister portrayed himself. It's an analysis that a good many Canadians bought. Which brings us to Martin's own problem: Now that he's running the show solo, he appears strangely incompetent. Nothing has worked out. He almost lost the election he was supposed to win handily. He was bullied by Quebec and Alberta on the 2004 health deal and then bullied again into handing over vast gobs of equalization money by Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams. Martin has revealed himself as such a target that even Ontario's Dalton McGuinty is trying to cadge an extra $5 billion. As leader of a minority government, Martin has few choices. But when forced to accept the politically inevitable (as he did when he refused to sign on to the U.S. missile defence scheme), he appears vacillating rather than shrewd. He has never managed to explain why he wants to be prime minister. He does not seem to relish even the game of politics. The fact that he changes his mind makes him no different from most leaders (which is why the "Mr. Dithers" label is unfair). But unlike more successful politicians, from Pierre Trudeau to Brian Mulroney, when Martin makes a U-turn, he looks manifestly embarrassed - as if he disapproves of himself. In the case of the sponsorship scandal, the more Martin tries to distance himself, the more he risks playing into the image of his own incompetence. I suspect most people believe him when he says he knew nothing of the affair. But the logical question then is: How could that be? How could a person who was finance minister, a senior Quebec Liberal and the second most important figure in government be so clueless as to have no idea of what was going on in his own backyard? Theoretically, Martin could win the next election. Voters in this province may hold their noses one more time. But this will happen only if Ontarians continue to think they have no other choice. If Harper is able to present himself as that choice, as a rational human being rather than a chilly neo-con fronting for a party of loons, Martin is finished. Over the last few months, the Conservative leader has been making a credible start on this front. It's this that should alarm the Liberals, not Gomery. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V7 #966 ********************************** 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.