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 #182 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 182 In this issue: A Canada Day Challenge [LETTER] (We'd like to see you cut your costs even more.) My letter to the Calgary Sun Sculpture Edmonton Sun Re: Hasta ... vs I'll be back! Re: MP calls arrested natives thugs; Re: Hasta la vista, baby Vs I'll be back Who Dares, Wins - and other thoughts. Fewer guns? Hosed? RE: "Hasta La Vista" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 14:00:46 -0600 (CST) From: Edward Hudson Subject: A Canada Day Challenge A Canada Day Challenge I regret to see that Dr Jim Thacker is considering departing from active participation on the Firearms Digest. I will sincerely miss his participation, as I would miss the participation of any one of you. Each of us, in our own unique way, have a 'gift' to give one another by offering freely our points of view of the current topic under 'discussion'. I dare say that no where else in North America is such a wide variety of opinion so close at hand in a well monitored symposium by the simple click of a 'posting' as here in the Digest where everyone is honestly identified and many personal relationships have thus been fostered. I sincerely hope that Dr Thacher will reconsider his departure, and perhaps learn to separate more quickly 'the wheat from the chaff' of the large amount of readily available material. Unfortunately, I can very easily understand Dr Thacker's frustration. We do sometimes (i.e., more likely - quite often) devote a large amount of energy, typing, posting, sometimes perhaps even reading, and responding to what in comparison to the "Big Picture" must be terribly inconsequential. While I am not trained as is Dr Thacher in psychology, I think I do understand a bit of the motivation to some of these discussions: We would rather punch and kick at a good 'safe' target like a fellow firearms owner rather than take on a 'hard' target like the federal government. We can very easily post a fiery, defiant message to a fellow on the Digest with impunity. Address such a message to Mr Paul Martin or Ms Anne McLellan and we are potentially liable to be 'listed' as a terrorist. Yet in the first incidence (the Digest posting), we obtain the same 'satisfaction' of 'telling some one off' - we have proven our manhood, or womanhood, and strengthened our self-worth as if we had actually done something constructive. Dr Thacher also mentions another 'sore' issue - our lack of 'unity,' which Robert Sciuk again recently challenged us to reconsider. This topic I feel much more qualified by my veterinary professional training to address, for as Mr Sciuk suggests, organizing firearms owners is 'like trying to head cats.' As 'cats' - we firearms who are quite content in our individual individuality - we guard jealously our independence, and fiercely attack any supposed attempt at usurpation. This is why I sincerely hope that Dr Thacher will reconsider his stated desire to abandon us to our own devises: We need to admit our need of HELP ! Nothing shameful in that. In fact one of the most successful self-improvement programs in North America has weekly meetings which teaches a Twelve Step program which begins with that basic assumption. Perhaps Dr Thacher could explain to Mr Scuik that 'groups' like firearms owners will never get "all" members to agree that inexpensive beer is good on a hot day. We need to learn the advantages of 'being different' and learn to celebrate those differences. Perhaps we need to learn cooperatively to form not ONE, but perhaps two or three national representative groups. I readily give Professor Al Dorans credit for having one slogan dead right: "One goal, many methods." We have ONE GOAL, but, I can not reasonably expect "everyone" to embrace my brand of peaceful, non-compliance to reach that goal. Nor should the 'politicians' of the Digest expect someone as cynical as I to embrace the 'political route' to freedom. And for good or ill, we do have some "Easterners" on the Digest ("and never the twain shall meet"). In concluding, I trust that this will NOT be a farewell to a valuable member of the Digest, but a call for recommitment to fighting our real foe - the Federal government and their mendacious Firearms Act. Until we have secured the repeal of the Firearms Act - by whatever peaceful means necessary - I think I can reasonable call upon each responsible citizen of Canada to 'stay at your post' until we have accomplished that goal. To very roughly paraphrase Dr Thacher, "It is time to stop the internal bickering and do the really HARD work of fighting, not one another, but fighting the Federal government with all of our 'heart, soul, mind, and body.' Until we agree to do that we do not deserve to celebrate Canada Day. Sincerely, Eduardo On 2005 Jul 01, at 9:00 AM, Jim Thacker wrote: > > 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. > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 14:54:14 -0600 (CST) From: "Bruce Mills" Subject: [LETTER] (We'd like to see you cut your costs even more.) http://www.canoe.ca/CalgarySun/editorial.html#letters The story "Tory MP slams gun control cost" (June 16) addressed, among other things, the cost of the Canadian Firearms Program. Costs are not increasing. The main estimates for the Canada Firearms Centre request funding of $82.3 million for the centre for 2005-06. This represents a reduction of $18 million from the previous year's approved spending and a full 59% reduction from funding in 2000-01. Costs related to firearms registration for 2005-06 are estimated to be $15.7 million (as one portion of the total $82.3 million for the year), also down considerably from previous years. The Canada Firearms Centre works to improve services, ensure the most effective, cost-efficient delivery possible of the Canadian Firearms Pro-gram, and maximize its contribution to public safety. James Deacon Canadian Firearms Centre (We'd like to see you cut your costs even more.) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 15:00:56 -0600 (CST) From: "Bruce Mills" Subject: My letter to the Calgary Sun Just submitted, not yet printed. Have you written a letter today? - ----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce Mills To: Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 4:55 PM Subject: Re: James Deacon's letter I have to laugh at James Deacon's feeble attempts to justify the horrendous cost of the Federal Liberal Government's failed firearms fiasco, by saying that they've got costs down to $82.3M for this year. That's what Alan Rock said the whole program would cost in 1995! And these costs don't take into account all the other money that other Departments are hiding in their budgets - let's not forget that the Auditor General wasn't able to find records of it all, and Anne McLellan routinely hides costs behind "Cabinet Secrecy" provisions. Nobody knows the real costs of this thing, in monetary terms, anyhow. What I find most arrogant is the protestations that they are becoming "more effective" at "delivering services". Well, the law abiding gun owners of Canada don't want what Mr. Deacon is selling. We want him and his meddling, money grubbing bureaucracy gone, out of our pockets and out of our lives! And if anyone believes that the snake oil he is peddling is in any way, shape, or form about "public safety", I'll show you someone who thinks Paul Martin knew nothing about the AdScam scandal. Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 16:04:31 -0600 (CST) From: AOB Subject: Sculpture Edmonton Sun Our Response. Friday, July 01, 2005 Attn Editor Subject "Gun Sculpture" Page 16 Weekend Dear Sir, some questions your Mr Ross did not ask, Total cost in time and labor of this project? Dig in your Sun Archives. Total cost in touring this alleged sculpture around the World and promoting their view. Total money they have received in donations & how much used for their own support from those donations. Once again inanimate objects are being blamed for human misuse, eg vehicles as well for that matter. Would not this money be better spent addressing the root causes that affect our society (Family Violence, Young Offenders, Alcohol Abuse Etc:) and more efficient enforcement of existing laws ?. Allan W Parsons Edmonton Alberta ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 16:42:52 -0600 (CST) From: Edward Hudson Subject: Re: Hasta ... vs I'll be back! On 2005 Jul 01, at 1:58 PM, Robert S. Sciuk wrote: > > 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. > ....... > So the problem remains. How does one speak for the libertarian > radicals and > the moderate firearms owners at the same time? Generally when one speaks of "compromise" important principles are not involved. Therefore when one 'faction' is concerned that the other 'faction' is not willing to compromise, then perhaps we have not communicated clearly which of our "basic or essential quality or element determining intrinsic nature or characteristic behavior" we are not willing to modify. This is vital; we need to be clear: The problem is the entire Firearms Act. We 'compromised' back in 1977. And the 'other side' came back demanding more !! Now is NOT the time to even consider MORE compromises. Repeal the Firearms Act !! Then we would be ready to compromise on a workable solution to ensure the safety of all Canadians. That position was very clearly articulated at the CPC Convention in Montr=E9al in March by the firearms delegates who worked tirelessly on the wording of the CPC Policy to ensure the words "firearms licence" did not appear in any form. We have proposed a replacement of the Firearms Act, the Firearms Prohibition Registry, which we believe would be more effective, and certainly more cost efficient, than the Firearms Act, and very noteworthy, would not violate anyone's Rights and Freedoms. We would welcome the opportunity to work with anyone who believes that self-preservation and the Right to own firearms are inseparably linked. History, modern history, teaches conclusively that citizens have more to fear from government than criminals. Therefore to suggest any thing less than total repeal of the Firearms Act is an endorsement of state sponsored suicide. I consider this a very 'moderate' position. It is based on English and Canadian history, Common Law, Canadian custom, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And we are very committed to the peaceful accomplishment of the goal. I trust that this, while possibly impassioned, is not deemed 'inflammatory.' To win this fight we need committed allies, not vanquished foes. Sincerely, Eduardo ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 19:16:48 -0600 (CST) From: Jim Powlesland Subject: Re: MP calls arrested natives thugs; On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 Breitkreuz@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca wrote: > The RCMP's Integrated National Security Enforcement Team (INSET) also > seized 14 Norinco M305 rifles and 10,400 rounds of ammunition from a van > in which Ward and Dennis were passengers. > Dennis said the rifles were legally obtained, and produced a receipt > showing he bought the guns and ammunition for $11,867.40 from Lever > Arms Service Ltd. on Burrard Street. Looks like they got hosed. Norinco M-305 rifles cost about $400 ($400 x 14 = $5600). See http://www.marstar.ca/Norinco/M-305.htm > "This action was approved by the CFC before they got out the door," > Chung said. Which is ironic since the CFC was created in reaction to the Oka crisis. Yet another failure of the CFC. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 19:24:53 -0600 (CST) From: "Al Muir" Subject: Re: Hasta la vista, baby Vs I'll be back > 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. > 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. When the going gets tough one runs and hides? And that is an acceptable and a properly considered course of action? I wonder what Churchill would think of that one. Perhaps you have stumbled onto the real reason for our ineptness. > 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. If you were a little more intimate with the background workings of the Ottawa Office you would know it ground to a halt because it did not have a constitution and set of bylaws. Putting finance before structure is what killed it. There was reluctance to raise funds only to stumble into another organizational fiasco at a later date. If a constitution and bylaws were in place before fundraising began we would likely have an Ottawa office now. The licence issue is and always has been the most critical issue that divides us but not the issue that explains our collective weakness. If you recall the 1995 position of the National Coalition of Provincial and Territorial Wildlife Federations licencing was rejected in no uncertain terms. Has anyone been provided with logical reasons why the position changed so radically. It has nothing to do with moderation and everything to do with obtaining "peace in our time". As one who wanted to take to the streets at the licencing deadline I was thwarted. When arriving on Parliament Hill on the registration deadline where were the moderates that accepted licencing but did not accept registration? Those of us with no interest in licencing should have been drowned in a sea of them (moderates). If "moderates" outnumber us so badly as is often claimed, where are they? What have they accomplished? What are they doing at present to lead us out of the wilderness? Our central problem is that too few of us truly believe in the importance of what we are trying to accomplish. They are only guns. Right? We only shoot and hunt with them. Right? We do not have the right to arms for self defense. Right? As gun owners our rights are just not that important. Right? None of these things are worth financial risk. Right? None of them are worth standing on the streets for. Right? None of them are worth going to jail over. Right? None of them are worth going to jail over if we fail with every legal challenge. Right? You can be sure when hunting is under the axe we will be equally dispassionate. The Liberals have given us the Firearms Act, Cruelty to Animals Act and Schad as an environmental overseer. What did they give to the OFAH that prostrated themselves in front of them? What in this would lead one to think that any of us, radical or moderate would have an effect on them? We are unable to make the Firearms Act a significant issue in federal elections, what makes us so certain that the unanchored, center drifting further leftward, Canadian voter, will consider it of any particular importance. Can we not recall how low the issue ranked in the last election? If they decide to make it an issue are we that unconfident in our ability to make our case? Keep in mind the Conservative are promising the repeal of the Firearms Act not the Right to keep and bear arms. Any suggestion that Canadian voters are inexorably linked to licencing is nonsense. The vast majority of Canadian have no clue of what firearms control entails. No licencing can exist without a declaration of the right to keep and bear arms in a political solution. It may not last but it is possible. We want an NRA but lack the resolve that put them in the position they are in. That lack of resolve is our undoing not our differences. >> 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 agree that a loss of any of us is a loss but one should always stay for the right reasons. Stay because you are true to the cause. If you are, "agitators" are a minor distraction easily removed by the delete function. The sooner we go critical the better! Right now I would settle for signs of life. >> 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. > 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. Is the only burning issue licencing? I have not seen evidence otherwise. Perhaps handguns? > Now watch the flames. I am not sure if this will be considered a flame or not. I assume it will but I can assure you it is not offered in that sprit. Happy Canada day to all of us. Lets get on with the business of getting it back from the Liberal oligarchy. Al ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 20:22:28 -0600 (CST) From: "Jim S." Subject: Who Dares, Wins - and other thoughts. Robert, et al: > On one hand, the more radical amoung us are prepared to risk much. Even some of the less radical among us are prepared to risk much. Variance from the "norm" ("radical" versus "moderate", in terms of position) is NOT an indicator of the strength of one's convictions. Some of the most commited folks I know would be considered "absolute moderates" by most of the RFC. Their lack of public presence should not be considered passive acceptance of what the Government is pushing on the public. > 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. I refer you to Ed Hudson's most excellent tag line by Margaret Mead (Which I am undoubtedly butchering): "Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing which has." Jeff Cooper is fond of saying: "It's not the size of the dog in the fight that matters - it's the size of the fight in the dog." As we have said repeatedly to Anne McClellan: "The Debate is NOT over." Some issues are too fundamental to leave to large groups, where the resulting clash of visions interfere with organizing a cohesive position to oppose abusive government measures. Jim Szpajcher St. Paul, AB ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 20:22:51 -0600 (CST) From: Len Miller Subject: Fewer guns? Written but not published. Dear Reporter Landry. Having perused your naive item I must ask ; Did you or justice minister Mackintosh take note of those who surrendered those 285 firearms? Did you bother to note if any were 'turned in' by criminals? Or was it the NUMBER of guns, rather than they who surrendered? As one other noted, guns do not 'fall' into the wrong hands . . They have need of a human hand . . they must be stolen . . . And, as Prof Gary Mauser (SFU) has it, the suicide rate continues undiminished, by other means . . . I invite you, as a journalist, to look into the deaths of two retiring school teachers ; Bob and Bonnie Dagenais, late of Ottawa, who were shotgunned to death by marauding burglars. THEY. like you eschewed guns, and died dialling 911. Most media focussed on the burglars . . not the two slaughtered teachers. But then, Sir, why bother with them, they're dead. The burglars were sentenced to less a penalty than the B&E called for in the Criminal Code. Being a reporter, you can be forgiven for not knowing the difference. The story is more important, not its veracity. Len Miller Happy Canada Day ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 20:23:14 -0600 (CST) From: "Jim S." Subject: Hosed? Jim - >> Dennis said the rifles were legally obtained, and produced a receipt >> showing he bought the guns and ammunition for $11,867.40 from Lever >> Arms Service Ltd. on Burrard Street. > > Looks like they got hosed. Norinco M-305 rifles cost about $400 > ($400 x 14 = $5600). > > See http://www.marstar.ca/Norinco/M-305.htm > So they bought about $5,400 worth of ammunition. Sounds like a good deal to me. Without getting into the discussion on the rights and wrongs of the issue, I've also got a rifle like those described above, and it is a fun little rifle at the range. I don't shoot real small groups with it - I'm happy with much larger groups than others would be, but then with my eyes, I'm not convinced that the problem is entirely the rifle's. I shoot at "military-sized" bulls-eye targets for 100 and 200 yards, and have a very relaxing time, and don't worry about sub-MOA groups. Occasional 5-shot 6" groups at 100 yards, and 12" groups at 200 yards, off-hand, give me a real sense of satisfaction, and using reloads with Remington 150 gr. PSP bullets and inexpensive WC-845 powder, I get twice the fun for each round fired. :-) Jim Szpajcher St. Paul, AB. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 20:24:01 -0600 (CST) From: "Winram" Subject: RE: "Hasta La Vista" Jim Thacker has served notice that he is fed up with the Digest and is signing off. That is too bad in my opinion although I can certainly understand his frustration. Like some of the other Digest denizens who have slipped into lurk mode in the past few years, I hasten to invite Jim Thacker to re-evaluate and return to the CFD, at least as an observer for a while longer. (And it's worth noting that he has on occasion been a worthy contributor that we can't afford to lose.) There is, after all, a certain amount of wheat within the chaff although I agree that the ratios have become increasingly sewed in favor of chaff as time goes by. But how else does a concerned gun owner keep a finger on the pulse of the RFC in general? For example, who among us would know about the Montague case without access to the Digest? How else can we follow the progress of the men who went clear across the country on behalf of all of us last year?? Certainly not via the mainstream media! Anyway, I hang in for the above reasons and sluff off the vituperation and BS (and I agree there is too much) in the same spirit as I watch the Bugs Bunny Road Runner Hour from time to time. Namely, if you don't take it all too seriously it can often be good entertainment to watch the clowns parade by. Besides, my scanning/deleting skills have certainly become sharp and speedy. Hang in for the laughs Jim! There are still some gems to be had. Lex Winram ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V8 #182 ********************************** 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.