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 #259 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 Tuesday, July 26 2005 Volume 08 : Number 259 In this issue: GOD Re: Canadian Army howiutzers My right to my opinions..... Re: Lanark Landowners Association Trust Re: police marksman's dilemma Re: Canadian Army howiutzers RE: CFEI Re: God RE:Membership fees Re: GOD [PRESS RELEASE] Firearms Seized In Rural Saanich Re: GOD Re: Ten Large Ones ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 13:53:40 -0600 (CST) From: "Bruce Montague" Subject: GOD I've been waffling on whether I'd get into this fray or not. As many of you are aware I am pretty vocal about my Christianity. My personal belief and one of the main reason's I'm fighting this law in the courts is that I think this law goes directly against our God given rights. Those rights are also enshrined in our constitution. - - But that is my *belief*. As a Christian I would never *force* my opinion or *belief* on any other person. We must show respect and tolerance for other people's beliefs and rights if ours are to have any meaning at all. Fortunately in this "gun control" debate I don't see a lot of disparity in the arguments for the Christian or non-Christian point of view. The main difference I see is that non-Christian's prefer to substitute the phrase "God given rights" into "natural rights". I must admit that I was somewhat insulted with the reference to God as "Her" (because I think it was intentional) and that is what prompted me to write this. I have never insulted or made fun of anyone else's belief, and I would appreciate the same in return. Please don't resort to name calling and the resultant hurt feelings. Let's work toward our goal of defeating these tyrannical gun laws, and perhaps in the meantime we can learn more about and appreciate each other as feeling human beings. Yours in Liberty, Bruce. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. :-) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:42:33 -0600 (CST) From: "jim davies" Subject: Re: Canadian Army howiutzers Why? If NATO went to war, our Forces would have to commandeer taxis, unless they were all at a mandatory sensitivity seminar. > What about NATO compatibility? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 18:14:50 -0600 (CST) From: "Chris Gilmore" Subject: My right to my opinions..... First I want to thank all of you who have encouraged me with your contacts. It has caused me to change my mind and stay on the "list". It seems we have alot of people who have tried to give their opinion only to receive an "scathing sarcastic dressing down publicly" which has caused them to be observers only. If the list is going to be fair about the rights of us all then the dressing down must stop immediately. Everyone has the right to voice an opinion and be heard. We may not always agree but I will protect your right to "wave your arms and swing your fist" only know this that the end of my nose is where your rights end. Your feedback is welcomed, Thank you, Chris Gilmore - -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.5/58 - Release Date: 25/07/2005 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 18:15:24 -0600 (CST) From: Christopher di Armani Subject: Re: Lanark Landowners Association At 12:43 PM 2005.07.26, you wrote: > > Don't know about you Bruce, but around here we want to protect our outdoor > > heritage and resources to leave for future generations. Also, poachers > don't > > consider themselves poachers either, but thats what they are! > >I noticed that you didn't bother to actually answer my question: did Randy >at any time use the word "poaching"? My bet is that he didn't. If I recall the situation Randy was addressing, it was *specifically* that the authorities were refusing to issue them licenses to shoot the deer destroying their crops. Upon the threat of shooting the deer WITHOUT the licence, the authorities promptly issued the licences in question, thereby resolving the issue. Randy, from where I sit, is doing a great service to Canadians, by making the government sit up and take notice of his defense of all our rights. I think the article was in the current issue of Western Standard. Yours in Liberty, Christopher di Armani christopher@diArmani.com Our poison-tipped pens are greater than the mightiest of swords - diArmani.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:56:12 -0600 (CST) From: Rick Lowe Subject: Trust "mred" > Do you trust government and the police ? given what some will do to get a > conviction ? > > (Marshall , Turcotte, Milgaard, Guerin, Coffin ?) Do you trust law abiding firearms owners, given what some will do? Law abiding hunter and firearms owner Robert Thibodeau murdered his wife; he didn't just imprison her through incompetence, neglect, or outright maliciousness. Law abiding hunter and firearms owner David Nelson killed five members of his family, including children; he didn't just imprison them through incompetence, neglect, or outright maliciousness. Law abiding hunter and firearms owner Charles Pendry murdered his wife in front of his children; he didn't just imprison her through incompetence, neglect, or outright maliciousness. etc, etc... Not that I trust my government or always assume the police will always act lawfully or correctly but... if we can't trust police because of the actions of a few, just why are so many confused when others apply the same line of reasoning to "law abiding firearms owners" and don't trust them any more than Ed trusts police? If the actions of a few criminal, malicious, or incompetent police define police as a whole, then I'm not sure why anyone would be confused when exactly the same process is applied to "law abiding firearms owners". ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:10:33 -0600 (CST) From: Rick Lowe Subject: Re: police marksman's dilemma Linda FreefallCrusader forwarded: > * Should reassess the situation after each shot. This is drivel and I'm amazed any sane police officer would take a shot, look up from his sights to assess whether the threat was over or not, reacquire his sight picture, shoot again, etc. > "The problem with the police continuing with that strategy is that if > a round enters the body of a suicide bomber it could detonate the > charge, probably killing the person wearing it, the police officers > and anyone else who is close to the suspect. The chances of a bullet setting off the explosive is very small - most explosives these days are not sensitive to the kind of shock a bullet would impart. A blasting cap would be sensitive, but the chance of hitting the blasting cap would be rather small. The real issue would be a suicide bomber having the second or two to initiate what they were carrying, and that would be a legitimate reason for training for hits that produce guaranteed instant incapacitation. > But the death of Mr. Menezes shows the tragic consequences which can > lead from such a policy and there may now have to be a rethink by > Scotland Yard. With the little we do know of this shooting, Britains should indeed be demanding an open inquest into this, but the policy is not the issue. What strikes me as curious here is the justification for this shooting as reported. If I were British, what I would find troublesome is the fact the police didn't shoot him as a suspected suicide bomber BEFORE he ever got anywhere near a car filled with people. They only shot him AFTER he got on the car and AFTER (apparently) they had him down and pinned. Somebody screwed up here. Either those chasing him broke policy and common sense by letting him get anywhere near a carful of passengers without shooting him and the shooter was a following officer who initiated that policy as soon as he got a shot. Or the shooter lost his head once he was down and secured and basically murdered him once the justification for shooting him was over. You'd have to know more of the details about what happened before and after than I've seen so far, but something is definitely wrong with this shooting, and it has to do with the decisions that were made, not with any policy. - -- "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." George Orwell ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:00:07 -0600 (CST) From: kdesolla@austin.rr.com Subject: Re: Canadian Army howiutzers - ----- Original Message ----- > From: ross > > > I have a relatively cheap fix for the canadian Army. rather than > use the > > antuiquated howitzers which have been foist upon the militray > through> liberals neglect.... they turn to the Soviet Union or even > China and buy > > some of their 123 mm howitzers, or perhaps some of their newer > larger> calibre cannon. > I wonder if the government bought howitzers from France because Bombardier doens't make howizters? :-) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:04:40 -0600 (CST) From: "mac mcbride" Subject: RE: CFEI I have 15 years of RCN service somewhere in my past. I joined in 1948, and managed to be on board the Cayuga for opening of the Korean thing. I spent my 20th birthday there. I sometimes have little patience with young people, but I think that is partly a function of age, and the changing times. In the 40's in Winnipeg the murder of a cabdriver was front page news for many days. At the same time I and several friends used to carry our .22's across the handlebars of our bikes on route to the bald prairie which in my day started about 100 yards past the end of to Corydon Avenue street car line. During the war years the Canadian government gave me a uniform, called me an Army Cadet and taught me how to shoot and march. The same outfit in Germany was, I believe, called the Hitler youth. Nowadays we have damn few young members in our local Rod and gun club. The ones that do join do so to gain access to the indoor and outdoor ranges. They seldom attend meetings. The same attitude exists regarding politics. Many don't vote, or know the name of their Federal member. SO, it looks like the end of the line for local Rod and Gun clubs here on the west coast. The tree huggers are winning. I was an NFA member till I found I had no vote in anything. I quit, but this was after I had sent money to the billboard fund which has sort of disappeared. I made donations ($300.00) to the effort to open an Ottawa office. That didn't fly and my money was returned. Now it looks like another effort is being made, and I am sorry to say that the bickering already on the Digest has me worried. My elder brother, now deceased, spent six years overseas in WW2. When I enlisted in the RCN I was asked "What Religion" I answered truthfully "None". I was told that that was not permitted and if I wanted to join I could take a pick from one of several religion listed. I have fought any effort since then to make me a bible thumper. I was dismayed at the arguments and rhetoric that appeared on the Digest. I don't give a pinch of coon shit what anyone's religion is or was. If they are trying to protect our rapidly disappearing freedoms then that's good enough for me. Since I live in a small town on the West Coast I will never make it to any Ottawa rallies, so I have to trust in any and everyone who carries the banner for me. So, wher do I sign up, and how much do I send? Mac ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:13:08 -0600 (CST) From: kdesolla@austin.rr.com Subject: Re: God Sorry, I haven't been following this closely, but you want to leave the digest because Bruce doesn't want 'God' written into the charter or bylaws or whatever the document was?? - ----- Original Message ----- From: Chris Gilmore Date: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 4:43 am Subject: Re: God > > Point well taken Bruce, I read your letters all the time and it is > welldocumented > that you don't want anything to do with God. That is your right, > but what > about > the rights of those who do believe in Him? We read your opinions > all the > time > but you don't seem to have the time for ours. > Well I don't want to be a hypocrite by pretending that your written > opinionsdon't really mean anything. I think it is better if I > remove myself from any > future exposure to this list you have control of. > Have a good life, > Chris ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:42:44 -0600 (CST) From: Ian parkinson Subject: RE:Membership fees Would it be possible that CFEI could interest an Insurance company in providing Liability Insurance of the type promoted by the NFA without all the paper shenanigins. Many if not all range operators would love to have a real liability insurance package with all the documantation provided. This insurance I gather could provide a significant sum of oney to the CFEI and help keep memebership fees down?? - -- Ian Parkinson Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:43:07 -0600 (CST) From: kdesolla@austin.rr.com Subject: Re: GOD - ----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce Montague Date: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 7:53 pm Subject: GOD > As a Christian I would never *force* my opinion or *belief* on any > otherperson. We must show respect and tolerance for other people's > beliefs and > rights if ours are to have any meaning at all. Fortunately in this > "guncontrol" debate I don't see a lot of disparity in the arguments > for the > Christian or non-Christian point of view. The main difference I see > is that > non-Christian's prefer to substitute the phrase "God given rights" > into"natural rights". "natural rights" seems suitable. I think it gets the point across and individuals have the right to believe what they want about where those natural rights originate from. - -keith ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:49:10 -0600 (CST) From: "Bruce Mills" Subject: [PRESS RELEASE] Firearms Seized In Rural Saanich http://www.saanichpolice.ca/crimewatch/media/05_17997.html Firearms Seized In Rural Saanich On Saturday July 23, 2005 at approximately 11:30 am, Saanich Police responded to a weapons in progress call in the 300 block of Walton Road, near Oldfield Road. Police received information about shots being fired in this area and as a result the immediate area was contained by the responding members. Saanich Police set up surveillance on a residence and then contacted a male by telephone. Through negotiation the male subject was directed to exit his residence and surrender to the police. The male cooperated and was arrested without incident on the roadway outside his residence by members of the Saanich Police Patrol Division. A search of the property and residence resulted in thirty-nine (39) firearms and twenty thousand (20,000) rounds of live ammunition. A 38 year old Saanich man was charged with numerous weapon offences including Unsafe Storage of several firearms and later released on a Promise to Appear. At this time, the investigation is still on-going. (Saanich file #05-17997) (Posted by Cst. Brajcich on July 25, 2005) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 22:48:36 -0600 (CST) From: Mark L Horstead Subject: Re: GOD - --- Bruce Montague wrote: > I've been waffling on whether I'd get into this fray > or not. Same here. Jumping into the middle of passionate arguments seldom achieves anything useful, plus I'm not around much lately and don't really have the time to get involved in this. Now that Bruce has laid his feelings out so eloquently and calmly I feel that I shall say my piece. > As many of you > are aware I am pretty vocal about my Christianity. And I don't think that anybody would object to that. It is only natural to want to share anything that brings one joy, meaning, comfort, pleasure, profit or any other benefit. > My personal belief and > one of the main reason's I'm fighting this law in > the courts is that I think > this law goes directly against our God given rights. > Those rights are also > enshrined in our constitution. - - But that is my > *belief*. I do not share your religious beliefs, or those of, probably, most here. What is important to me in that regard, however, is that you or anybody else are free to follow your/their beliefs in peace and with respect, and I am similarly free. And that is part of those rights that we have and strive to maintain. By pushing, to whatever degree, for the mention of one particular god in any prime document that has nothing to do with religion somebody's right to freedom of religion or freedom from religion gets trampled. And that is a fact, regardless of whether an infringement of the other's rights is intended or not. > As a Christian I would never *force* my opinion or > *belief* on any other > person. We must show respect and tolerance for other > people's beliefs and > rights if ours are to have any meaning at all. And I as an atheist, just as happy with my theories/beliefs as any Christian (or Jew, Muslim, Hindu etcetera), would never force my opinions or beliefs on any other. The second sentence should be read repeatedly by most of the posters on this matter because it seems to escape several of them. Our arguments are about _rights_, not religion. If that argument is to have any validity, it must be kept pure, and we cannot promote any right, let alone a belief, over any other. > Fortunately in this "gun > control" debate I don't see a lot of disparity in > the arguments for the > Christian or non-Christian point of view. The main > difference I see is that > non-Christian's prefer to substitute the phrase "God > given rights" into > "natural rights". Bingo. > I must admit that I was somewhat insulted with the > reference to God as "Her" > (because I think it was intentional) and that is > what prompted me to write > this. I have never insulted or made fun of anyone > else's belief, and I would > appreciate the same in return. I believe that the Other Bruce was simply trying to make a point rather than insult, that point being that one person's concept of a supreme being may be very different from another's. By trying to impose the Christian concept of God (and even the Christian viewpoint seems to vary between Christians) on those people who do not share it offence, no matter how unintentional, unrealized, or incomprehensible it might be to Christians, is committed. Some people do indeed ascribe a female personality to their version of a supreme being. That includes, if I remeber correctly, the Other Bruce. He is, therefore, just as entitled to use "Her" as a Christian is to use "Him". God, if he/she actually exists, could quite well be gender neutral - it doesn't make sense to have gender if there's only one after all. "It" doesn't quite cut it as a term of respect, though. It is a simple truth that, given the number and diversity of human religious beliefs, most have it wrong - and I may be just as wrong in my beliefs as any other. Nobody will really know if there's a God/god(s) and or godess(es) and who's right or wrong until they actually die, and I'm really not that curious. For me, I'll obviously never know if I'm right as all that there is after death is oblivion, and I'd be quite content to be wrong. I'm quite happy to get thoroughly involved in such discussions as there's always something to learn from them, but this is a firearms forum and, whatever one's religious convictions are or are not, they're irrelevant to the discussion of developing guiding principles for another organization. > Please don't resort to name calling and the > resultant hurt feelings. Agreed. I do not, for example, appreciate being told that "Without God, morality does not exist. Morality can never be a "living document". Without morality there can be no lens through which evil may be revealed. Without the concept of "God" the concept of "freedom" has no basis, no reference point. Without God we are, as the saying goes, "meat puppets". The author is telling me that because I do not share his beliefs that I am immoral and have no concept of evil or freedom and am simply a "meat puppet". Sounds like an insult to me. Fortunately, I realize that no offence is intended even if one is actually made and I am quite capable of foregiving the offence. > Let's > work toward our goal of defeating these tyrannical > gun laws, Yes. > and perhaps in > the meantime we can learn more about and appreciate > each other as feeling > human beings. Yes. > Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This is a simple, basic truth, and is most likely recognized in any religion. It certainly makes sense to atheistic me. Jim Szpajcher also wrote, in another post: "I think this is an important point. Once one brings God/s into the debate about morality, the question then devolves into _whose_ God/s, and that leads down the slippery slope down into a bog of disagreement. "We are, after all, discussing a group of firearms owners, not forming a church. I can't see where one's God/s would object whether His/Her/Their name was included, if one followed His/Her/Their principles as a member of the group." This sums it up fairly neatly as well. I thank Bruce and Jim for stating their views as they pertain to rights and firearms matters for a number of reasons, not the least because they saved me from the effort of replying to a couple of dozen other posts. On a related point, and at the risk of stirring feelings again, I also find offence in the inclusion of references to God in our Constitution and Anthem as this excludes those of us who are atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, and may others. Those of you who are Christians would not like having to sing about Mithra, even though you (hopefully) recognize the right of Mithrans to worship the deity of their choice, any more than I want to sing about God in my national anthem, There was simply no need to put that line in there in the first place. It bothers many Canadians, whether we express that or not, yet the error cannot be corrected because Christians would be up in arms over it. It's bad enough singing about "home and NATIVE land for those of us born elsewhere. I substitute "chosen" for "native", but don't think that I should have to. Constitutions and anthems must be inclusive if they are to have real validity. Anyway, may you all be as happy with your beliefs, whatever they are, as I am with mine. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 22:48:51 -0600 (CST) From: Rick Lowe Subject: Re: Ten Large Ones Len Miller wrote: > You can bet there wasn't a cop within a mile of the money seizure. > You can place your money on Customs. > You can also factor a bureaucrat who thought the Yank a potential I'll bet there was a cop within a mile. Effective or not, that legislation is intended to deal with organized crime, and a seizure like that will draw in the nearest police agency dealing with gang issues. > Further, policemen don't have BALLS, > Why do you think they seize guns from soft targets, those who > once were lawful gun owners? I'm just curious. Did you have a set of "BALLS" before you retired from police work - or were you a cowardly cop, the same as the ones you are now accusing of having no balls? And when did police lose their "BALLS"? The day after you were no longer a police officer? Were you the last cop with "BALLS"? My memory of the Twin Towers attack is most police died after rushing IN to burning buildings that ordinary people were rushing OUT of. Did they have "balls"? This spring a member shot it out with a contemptible murderer who had just slain four other members from ambush. He did it with a handgun against a semiautomatic rifle, at ranges far beyond those at which handguns are considered effective. The murderer with the advantage in weaponry, range, and surprise is the one who turned and ran, not the cop. Did that policeman have "balls"? I could go on, but perhaps it would be more instructive if you could just give us the details of when police have turned and run away in the face of adversity? Most cops are pretty good guys who do their job to the best of their ability, within the law as its' written. Most are ordinary people who rise to the occasion when the situation demands bravery - just as other ordinary people in other occupations do when bravery is called for. Like any group of ordinary people, a few are dishonest, a few are incompetent, and a few are cowards. But most are ordinary people and certainly not cowards. And in my mind, calling them all cowards is no different than calling all firearms owners killers. It's a comment made in ignorance or in cowardice... I'm just not sure which. - -- "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." George Orwell ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V8 #259 ********************************** 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.