From: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V8 #181 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, July 1 2005 Volume 08 : Number 181 In this issue: My letter to the Edmonton Sun Fewer guns, less danger My letter to the Winnipeg Sun Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V8 #180 Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V8 #180 The Arrogance of Judicial Tyranny Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V8 #178 Re: Not gun-shy Hasta la vista, baby ... vs I'll be back! Post Hosta la vista, baby. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 10:57:58 -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: Cc: Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 12:55 PM Subject: Re: Not gun-shy Creeps? Excuse me? Creeps? I demand that you apologize to all the legitimate, law-abiding gun owners of Canada for your defamatory comment. There is nothing wrong with having an appreciation for guns, and for remarking that this "work of art" is, indeed, a "waste of good guns". Guns no more wander the streets looking to "kill people" than do cars, or baseball bats. And what provenance do you have to show that any of these very guns killed anyone? The real creeps are those who wish to take away our rights, and with them our guns, for it is those very guns that defend all the other rights from tyranny. Creep. Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 11:02:26 -0600 (CST) From: "Bruce Mills" Subject: Fewer guns, less danger http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/WinnipegSun/News/2005/07/01/1112780-sun.html Fewer guns, less danger Tories scorn amnesty yield By FRANK LANDRY, LEGISLATURE REPORTER The Manitoba government's one-month gun amnesty has netted at least 260 firearms, including 35 handguns and two sawed-off shotguns. "Hats off to all the Manitobans that participated in this one," said Justice Minister Gord Mackintosh. "I think they've each, in their own way, contributed to reducing the risk of these firearms falling into the wrong hands or perhaps even being used in a suicide." Preliminary figures released by the province show the 260 firearms turned in as of yesterday also included 170 rifles and 53 shotguns. 'DUCK OR GOPHER SLEEP BETTER' The amnesty, which lasted the month of June, expired at midnight. Tory justice critic Kelvin Goertzen said the gun amnesty was good in that it gave "law-abiding citizens" -- like hunters and farmers -- an opportunity to dispose of their weapons safely. But it did nothing to get weapons out of the hands of criminals, he said. "If you're a duck or a gopher you can probably sleep better tonight," Goertzen said. "If you're a resident of downtown Winnipeg, I don't think you should take much comfort in what's happened in the past month." Criminals are not going to give up their guns voluntarily, said Goertzen. "They're going to have to be taken away from them," he said. During the last amnesty in 1994, 285 firearms were turned in during a five-month period. Mackintosh said he believes heavy promotion of the program this time resulted in a lot of weapons being surrendered in a relatively short period of time. The province spent $20,000 promoting the amnesty. Mackintosh had warned that people who turned in weapons used in a crime could still be charged. He said yesterday no charges were laid that he knew of. The justice minister said he would consider a gun amnesty again at some point in the future. Goertzen said Mackintosh purposely brought in the one-month program at a time when there was concern about the violence on the streets of Winnipeg. "He thought this would be a good way to deflect criticism," Goertzen said. "The criticism is going to continue because this is going to do nothing to stop the violence on the street." The weapons are to be destroyed. - --- GUNS 'N' AMMO Preliminary roundup of weapons turned in: - -- 170 rifles - -- 53 shotguns - -- 35 handguns - -- two sawed-off shotguns - -- 521 rifle shells - -- 295 shotgun shells - -- 39 boxes, bags of other ammunition - -- 12 other weapons, including a pellet gun, starter pistol, crossbow and combination handgun/rifle - -- Source: Province of Manitoba ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 11:05:46 -0600 (CST) From: "Bruce Mills" Subject: My letter to the Winnipeg Sun Just submitted, not yet printed. Have you written a letter today? - ----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce Mills To: Cc: ; Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 1:04 PM Subject: Re: Fewer guns, less danger I read Justice Minister Gord Mackintosh's press release on the "success" of his gun amnesty, and I must take the strongest possible exception to the terminology he uses. He, and many other politicians, bureaucrats and police officials, like to use the phrases "fall into the wrong hands" and "taking guns out of circuclation". These concepts are the mantra of the anti-gun extremists - they are fallcious and must be vigourously countered. Guns don't just "fall" into the wrong hands - this term is "passive". Criminals "break into" the homes of law abiding citizens, and "steal" their legally owned property; these are both criminal acts - there is nothing "passive" about them. "Taking guns out of ciruclation" gives the impression that these legitimate gun owners are out on the street, passing out guns to anyone who wants one. These guns are not "in ciruclation" or "on the streets" or any other such nonsense. They are locked up inside the homes of their owners, where they are 98% likely to never be used to commit a crime. Such terminology only serves to shift the responsibility for firearms misuse from the criminal who actually commits criminal acts, to law-abiding gun owners, who never have, and likely never will. This whole exercise was a dog and pony show, to make it look like Mackintosh was "doing something" about the "gun problem". It is much easier to browbeat and intimidate the law-abiding than it is to actually confront and take - and keep - the criminals who are really to blame "out of circulation". We must not allow such beliefs to become the "default" level of consciousness on this matter. We must not let our elected and appointed representatives get away with this type of brainwashing. It is Orwellian double-speak of the highest order. Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario PS: Your headline for this article, "Fewer guns, less danger" is false as well. Read Dr. John Lott's book "More Guns, Less Crime" for the real story on legal gun ownership and crime. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 11:42:24 -0600 (CST) From: Bill Farion Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V8 #180 Hi; I lost Bruces address. Could you please post it. The deposit address. Cheers Bill (;-) >together)..... Instead of following Bruces phrase "Have you written a letter >today" Let me ask "HAVE YOU DONATED TO THE CAUSE (Bruce Montague's) >TODAY......" Dont leave him high and dry...... > >Jim Thacker ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 11:47:35 -0600 (CST) From: "Bruce Mills" Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V8 #180 All you need to know can be found here: http://www.brucemontague.ca/html/index.html - ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Farion Hi; I lost Bruces address. Could you please post it. The deposit address. Cheers Bill (;-) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 11:58:59 -0600 (CST) From: Joe Gingrich Subject: The Arrogance of Judicial Tyranny In Canada, the provinces have control of our property rights not the individual. One exception is firearms property which is the property of the federal government. In 1215, the Magna Carta legally gave us the individual right to own property but under section 92.(13) [Property and Civil Rights in the Province] of our Canadian Constitution (the old BNA Act) those property rights have been withheld from individual Canadians by the provinces. Our firearms property rights are withheld from the individual by the federal government using the Firearms Act of 1995. I don't agree with the government of the day controlling my property rights. I want the right to own property which returned to me. This individual right as mentioned was initially enshrined in the Magna Carta of 1215 then reaffirmed by its enshrinement into the English Bill of Rights of 1689. When you work and individually earn your property which is ultimately the property of the state, not the individual's, it is called slavery. These two Acts are as legally vital today as they ever were for Canadians and for Americans due to their links to common legal background in English law.. This right as all rights are not worth anything unless they are constantly defended and used by those to whom they apply. I want to make it more difficult to be enslaved by a government or anyone else. I want my property rights restored to me, their lawful owner, now! No court in Canada or the U.S. can extinguish this right. Yours in Tyranny, Joe Gingrich White Fox, Sask. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---------------------- The Arrogance of Judicial Tyranny By Frank Salvato July 1, 2005 I don't think that I would be too off the mark if I said the Founding Fathers and their compatriots would have stormed the Supreme Court Building, torches and pitchforks in hand, looking for the five justices who championed the Kelo v. City of New London ruling. I have no doubt they would have found the court's decision tyrannical, the ruling more consistent with the court of the King than those charged with upholding the Constitution of free men. The ruling is so atrocious that I felt the need to contact the justices. But while I was paging through the US Supreme Court's website it became apparent, the justices don't feel the need to afford "We the People" access to them. In fact, the only email opportunity on the entire webpage was to let them know of technical difficulties. The last I checked the Supreme Court is indeed a branch of our government. So, it is quite disturbing that the justices make it next to impossible to contact them. Could it be that the Judicial Branch of our government is so arrogant that they will not be bothered by those for whom they work? To summarize the ruling while avoiding legalese, the Supreme Court (in particular Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens) decided that local governments can seize private property in favor of private development for the sole purpose of generating tax revenue. They contend that generating tax revenue is a "common good." To be fair they also said that individual states could restrict that power and at least 10 already do. In today's political climate it takes something quite remarkable for Republicans and Democrats to come together. But as I navigated the halls of the Longworth and Rayburn buildings on Capitol Hill last week it was obvious that the Supreme Court's decision had left a bad taste in everyone's mouth, and in Washington DC that's a hard thing to do! This ruling stems directly from socialist ideology. It allows local governments to redistribute wealth as they see fit under the pretense that it benefits the masses. This is about as far away from the idea of liberty as one can get. Picture the home in which you were brought up. Your Mother and Father inherited the house and the land from your Grandparents and they from their parents. The neighborhood has changed over the years but they still have a nice, well maintained house on a nice piece of land. It overlooks a beautiful scene as do the properties and houses of their neighbors. Throughout your life you have always expected to live there in your later years and hoped to one day pass that land on to your children upholding a tradition into the fourth generation. But wait, the town in which your parents' house is located had an election and the new mayor and board want to make something of this sleepy little town. They are approached by a mega-developer with visions of a nice resort hotel overlooking a beautiful scene complete with a golf course, restaurants and a spa. The point that wins the support of the town's elected officials is that the resort would generate tax revenue which, overwhelmed by the dollar signs, they could then spend at will. Now, I'll give you three guesses as to where that beautiful scenic view is located. That's right, the town is now looking at the property that sits under your parents' house and the houses of your parents' neighbors. Thanks to the 2005 Supreme Court town officials can now take your parents land even if they don't want to sell. In fact, the town will most likely confiscate their property paying a fraction of its worth for compensation. This scenario illustrates the redistribution of wealth from your parents and from your family -- from you -- to the people of your parents' town via tax revenue. The profits the new property owners and wealthy developers accrue from what used to be your parents' land only adds insult to injury. It is no less than theft. You get a pittance while big business and the newly defined "common good" profit at your expense. How very socialist. Local governments are going to manipulate this decision to the furthest extent possible. Already mayors in major metropolitan areas are maneuvering to attain large tracts of private property under the new definition of eminent domain. And they will snatch that land whether the owners wants to sell it or not. They will seize the land, "legally" depriving the land owner of personal wealth, courtesy of the US Supreme Court. I will go out on a limb and suggest that the Kennedy compound at Hyannisport and David Souter's home in New Hampshire will escape the socialist redistribution of wealth. They have enough money to buy the lawyers to circumvent being lumped in with the rest of us mere taxpayers. Still, I would love for the Hyannisport building inspector to slap a "red tag" on Kennedy's front door so the next strip mall to house a Chucky Cheese could be built. The Kelo decision usurps the liberties of every land owner in the country regardless of whether a state law prohibits it or not. The Supreme Court hasn't blurred the line between the public common good and the private sector, they have obliterated it. Even Dred Scott would agree; Kelo v. City of New London is perhaps the worst, pro-socialist decision ever rendered by the Supreme Court. From town president and forest preserve officials to your Congressmen and Senators in Washington DC, everyone should write their elected officials to protest this ruling. Demand that they finally take a stand against judicial activism. I would tell you to write the Supreme Court justices as well but they are too arrogant and too elitist to allow the "unwashed masses" access. They're obviously unwilling to be bothered with any concerns of ours, the "useful idiots" whose property rights are now subordinate to the almighty tax dollar. - ---------- Frank Salvato is the managing editor for TheRant.us. His pieces are regularly featured in Townhall.com. He has appeared on The O'Reilly Factor and numerous radio shows. His pieces have been recognized by the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention and are periodically featured in The Washington Times as well as other national and international publications. He can be contacted at oped@therant.us - -------------------- Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 12:20:46 -0600 (CST) From: 10x <10x@telus.net> Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V8 #178 At 10:34 AM 7/1/05 -0600, you wrote: > > >>From: "ross" >>Subject: Why? >> >>" Using estimates of the homosexual population in this >>country, there's far more of us than there is of them, so why are we so >>ineffectual in gaining acceptance from our fellow citizens." > >snip > >>if we are 7 million firearms owners as we say we are, then it is time to >>form a party for us that believes in the values our parents taught us. >With >>7 million supporters, I would bet we could scare the crap out of the rest >of >>these usdeless anal openings we have for political partiesm and we might >>just win an election. > >Wrong. If we are 7 million then 5.9 million of us have chosen to not >legitimize this act by complying. Of the 1.9 or so million that have >supposedly complied about 1.2 were already in the handgun registry. A small correction here. The old firearms registry had 1.2 million records of registration certificates held by 519,000 individuals as of 1994. Of these 519,000 folks, some 25,000 or so sold or "turned in" their registered firearms and are out of the databace. Of the 495,000 plus folks left less than half bothered to get a firearms license. Just remember that this is blatant non compliance of a group of people "known" to be in possession of restricte firearms. These folk have been lost from the system. If fifty percent of the folks that the federal government knows were in possession of handguns didn't bother to get a firearms license, then how many folks with rifles and shotguns that the goverment doesn't know about bothered to get a firearms license? There is a great deal of information that is NOT being released by the bureaucrats and politicians in power. I suspect from the numbers that the goverment is willing to release and historical numbers that were released by the department of Justice in past years that compliance with firearms licensing may be as high as 30 percent and compliance with registration may be at about 35 percent. The 1992 study that showed 3.2 million firearms owners with 7 million firearms also showed that of the homes with firearms 12 percent had a registered gun. If we make 12 percent equal to 519,000 folk, then 100 percent of homes with firearms would be about 4.5 million homes. Keep in mind that there could be multiple owners of firearms living in one home too, husband, wife, children, grandparents, and extended family so the number of firearms owners could be as high as five or six million. Using the more realistic ratio of 5 percent of homes with firearms having restricted firearms in them gives us a much higher number of homes that have all types of firearms available in them. Be very carefull with the numbers and how you use them. One error will destroy your credibility forever. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 12:21:08 -0600 (CST) From: 10x <10x@telus.net> Subject: Re: Not gun-shy At 10:56 AM 7/1/05 -0600, you wrote: > > >http://www.edmontonsun.com/Entertainment/Weekend/2005/07/01/1113246-sun.htm l > >Not gun-shy >Sculptor uses art to provoke dialogue on violence > >By MIKE ROSS, EDMONTON SUN > > >The "Gun Sculpture" is just one of many high-calibre artworks on display at >the Works Art and Design Festival. > >With that obvious joke out of the way, Edmonton sculptor Sandra Bromley >insists that she and her partner, Wallis Kendal, are not aiming to take away >your guns - the Canadian government is doing that. They're just making a >comment about guns. > >"We created it to provoke dialogue on issues of violence in our >communities," Bromley says. "It's a pretty simple message." > >In short, guns kill people. > >That, too, seems obvious, hardly worth mentioning at all, until you actually >see the thing. Squatting menacingly under a tent in the southeast corner of >Churchill Square, the Gun Sculpture is actually a prison cell - or a tomb, >if you like - made entirely of lethal weapons welded together. So when are these folks going to do a sculpture of Karla Homolka? She has killed people too! That would be a reminder that people , even women, kill other people. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 13:58:33 -0600 (CST) From: "Robert S. Sciuk" Subject: Hasta la vista, baby ... vs I'll be back! > Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 09:00:08 -0600 (CST) > From: "Jim Thacker" > Subject: Hosta la vista, baby. > > What amazes me about this forum is that even when someone argues (rather > well I might add) that we need to start being more organized and single > minded in our quest, and that we need to have an organization to spearhead > our cause and stop the bickering.............the bickering and petty snips > at each other seems to increase, and little, if anything is done to focus on > the problem identified. It seems almost as if the RFC has been infiltrated by agitators who would do anything to keep us from organizing. Moderates are driven to lurking status on this group (with a few obvious exceptions) by those who insult and slam their opinions and ideas. On one hand, the more radical amoung us are prepared to risk much. On the other hand, they are unprepared for a political process which involves any semblance of compromise. In this, they are doomed to fighting a lost cause in a centrist-left Canada. The problem is, we are all hitched to the same wagon, and our activists (God bless them) are whipping the horses into a frenzy. The moderates believe that some controls are OK, and we've had the license/certificate battle as a case in point. The problem is, as a group, we cannot agree amoung ourselves, and therefore we cannot convince either politicians or Canadians at large, since we have no consistent story to tell. That was why Al failed in uniting the RFC. Until we can agree, no effort will be enough to organize us. This involves some degree of compromise on both sides of the coin. > > Well I am outta here as we (the RFC) are indeed a bunch of losers. I should > have caught on when the Al Dorans effort died but I hung on. If any of you > hear about an effort to get us back on track please let me know but for now > I cannot take this crap anymore. > Your absence is one more victory for the "agitators". Jim, you need to reconsider your position. If we lose all those who would moderate the process, then like a nuclear reactor, (again with the similes) without the deuterium, we are bound to go critical. > I leave you with an important message, as there is someone who is fighting > the fight for all of us, and why he has not gotten a million dollars in > donations yet is beyone me (woops there I go assuming we are all in this > together)..... Instead of following Bruces phrase "Have you written a letter > today" Let me ask "HAVE YOU DONATED TO THE CAUSE (Bruce Montague's) > TODAY......" Dont leave him high and dry...... Touche'. To date, I have not. On one hand the dynamite thing was a bit spooky for me, on the other hand Bruce is taking one for the team on ALL of our behalf, and so far, we (the MODERATES) are letting him swing in the wind. I'll be making my donation early next week. > > Jim Thacker > Professor > Odette School of Business > University of Windsor > So the problem remains. How does one speak for the libertarian radicals and the moderate firearms owners at the same time? Jim, rather than bail, help to find us some common ground somewhere ... we have yet to identify that, and there are MANY able hands within reach of this digest. Now watch the flames. Rob Sciuk Oshawa,Ont. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 13:59:48 -0600 (CST) From: AOB Subject: Post Hosta la vista, baby. I would respectfully request that you reconsider your decision, Reason we have a large number of not just Firearms owners but also other young Canadians who are in need of being reminded that they are losing their freedoms nibble by nibble by an intransigent arrogant socialist government and unless we have people to point this out and lead we will lose our country to creeping socialism. Our own discontent with the sniping on this forum is of little consequence compared with the whole picture, Yes would love to have a Canadian counterpart of the NRA however in the meantime let us continue to use all means at our disposal to not only retain our freedoms & rights but strengthen them. Sincerely A W Parsons aka Ancient Old Bastard ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V8 #181 ********************************** 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.