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 #279 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 Monday, August 1 2005 Volume 08 : Number 279 In this issue: My letter to the Calgary Sun Letter to Globe and Mail (unpub) ... On Guard for thee and me Re: You can catch that trophy fish - just don't keep it Re: The Ultimate Authority Re: Enemies of the State Re: London Police Tactical Unit headgear. CTV: Toronto gun violence claims 3 lives overnight Re: London Police Tactical Unit headgear. Re: Policy by minority Re: London Police Tactical Unit headgear. Re: London Police Tactical Unit headgear. Cdn Professional Police Ass'n Re: Cdn Professional Police Ass'n Re: The Ultimate Authority Re: The Ultimate Authority Re: Poster - SGI - TAKE ACTION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:59:28 -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: Sunday, July 31, 2005 12:56 PM Subject: Re: AMERICAN GUN BILL PASSES IN SENATE Your reporting leaves out the most important word regarding the passage of the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act": FRIVOLOUS! This law will put an end to the FRIVOLOUS lawsuits being brought against the manufacturers of a lawful product, that are not defective when used in a lawful and appropriate manner. Gun makers and gun sellers are not responsible for "gun violence" - criminals are! The anti-gun extremists have targeted the manufacturers with these punitive, predatory, and politically motivated lawsuits in order to crush them out of existence. They aren't winning in the legislatures, so they have taken their lunacy to the courts. I am glad to see that at least one country still respects the sovereign right of all individuals to keep and bear arms. Too bad it isn't ours. Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 12:46:58 -0600 (CST) From: "Robert S. Sciuk" Subject: Letter to Globe and Mail (unpub) ... Hans Island is no Merasheen ... (fwd) Dear Sir/Madame, I enjoyed Rex Murphy's take on our territorial dispute with Denmark over Hans Island, and moreover, the mind's image of Bill Graham single handedly flying the flag over Canada's birthright was too much, I spilled my coffee. Given the state of Canada's armed forces, and our inability to protect our own sovereignty never mind project force in more than one (small) conflict, our broken down Sea Kings, our failing F-18 Hornets and our leaking submarines I suspect that the Government would be ill-advised to take steps like Maggie Thatcher did over the Falklands. On the other hand, leaving the brave Bill Graham (perhaps with Ann McLellan and Carolyn Parrish as well) on Hans with a couple of old Lee-Enfields to fend off the Danish invaders and those American Bastards and any other potential terrorists that Canadians are not "psycologically prepared for", somehow has a great deal of appeal to me. I know I'd sleep better. Sincerely, Robert S. Sciuk Oshawa, Ont. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 13:20:47 -0600 (CST) From: "Jim S." Subject: On Guard for thee and me Robert - > > On the other hand, leaving the brave Bill Graham (perhaps with Ann > McLellan and Carolyn Parrish as well) on Hans with a couple of old > Lee-Enfields to fend off the Danish invaders and those American > Bastards > and any other potential terrorists that Canadians are not > "psycologically > prepared for", somehow has a great deal of appeal to me. I know I'd > sleep > better. Good idea, Robert, but why stop at the crew above? You could beef up the garrison and put the entire Liberal Caucus there. Canada would be considerably improved with that group on guard for us in the High Arctic. Jim Szpajcher St. Paul, AB ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 13:33:10 -0600 (CST) From: "mred" Subject: Re: You can catch that trophy fish - just don't keep it - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Mills" To: Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 11:59 AM Subject: You can catch that trophy fish - just don't keep it > http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout > /Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1122630377735&call_pageid=968332188774&co > l=968350116467 > > You can catch that trophy fish - just don't keep it > Too many big fish being taken > Threatens overall size, growth rate > > ROBERT ALISON > SPECIAL TO THE STAR > Jul. 30, 2005. 01:00 AM > Biologists are recognizing that heavy emphasis on harvesting the > biggest deer, bighorn sheep and elk (especially males) has biased sex > ratios and selectively removed from populations the genes for bigness > and robustness that are vital to population stability. > > Taking too many genetically superior individuals from any fish or > wildlife population has inevitable negative genetic consequences, > biologists say. They recommend an overhaul in the current fish and > wildlife conservation mindset. > > Robert Alison is a former senior biologist with the Ministry of > Natural Resources. He is now a consultant to several groups. You dont need a biologist to tell us this ? Just ask any breeder of farm livestock which animals he keeps for breeding purposes In any case many lakes in Ontario have slot size limits only allowing fish to be kept that fit in a certain slot. If a fish is too big for the slot it MUST be returned to the water forthwith. ed/ontario ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 14:46:02 -0600 (CST) From: Edward Hudson Subject: Re: The Ultimate Authority On 2005 Jul 30, at 3:12 PM, Bruce Mills wrote: > If each and every one of us do not believe in, act like, and demand > that our individual, inalienable, and sovereign rights are supreme > against the majority and the tyrannical, then we don't have a > philosopical leg to stand on. We might as well pack it in right now. Very well said. That is what this Digest is about: Calling responsible people to action to protect our Rights and Freedoms. And after we *get the message* ensuring that we disseminate the message. Sincerely, Eduardo ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 14:46:38 -0600 (CST) From: Dave Jordan Subject: Re: Enemies of the State Yea, I'm kind of very interested in where, why and when that "THE Bug-eyed Little Dictator" made this statement as well?? Any help on this out there? L-DRGJ - ----- Original Message ----- From: Edward Hudson On 2005 Jul 29, at 1:30 PM, M.J. Ackermann, MD wrote: > Anne MacLellan once said, "I know what is right for Canada and > those who disagree must be enemies of the State". Citation, please. Sincerely, Eduardo ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 17:13:45 -0600 (CST) From: Christopher di Armani Subject: Re: London Police Tactical Unit headgear. At 09:55 AM 2005.07.31, you wrote: > > > Of course, if *you* were to walk down the street > > > with a balaclava on, you'd be stopped toute de > > > suite and asked why... > > > > Context again. One man, civilian clothes etcetera. > >But what crime am I committing by walking down the street wearing a >balaclava? None whatsoever, which is what makes the idea of doing it interesting. Especially, for example, if we had people videotaping the resultant "high-risk takedown" of a law-abiding citizen dressed as he/she felt. You can bet they'd find a charge from deep in the bowels of the criminal code to justify themselves. Hey, they may not have to look any further than the anti-terrorism law... :( Yours in Liberty, Christopher di Armani christopher@diArmani.com Our poison-tipped pens are greater than the mightiest of swords - diArmani.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 17:14:02 -0600 (CST) From: Dennis@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca, Young@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: CTV: Toronto gun violence claims 3 lives overnight CTV: Toronto gun violence claims 3 lives overnight http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1122846214092_40/? hub=TopStories ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 17:20:10 -0600 (CST) From: "Bruce Mills" Subject: Re: London Police Tactical Unit headgear. - ----- Original Message ----- From: Christopher di Armani > >But what crime am I committing by walking down the street wearing a > >balaclava? > > None whatsoever, which is what makes the idea of doing it > interesting. Especially, for example, if we had people videotaping > the resultant "high-risk takedown" of a law-abiding citizen dressed > as he/she felt. You can bet they'd find a charge from deep in the > bowels of the criminal code to justify themselves. Hey, they may > not have to look any further than the anti-terrorism law... :( It gets even more interesting if it isn't even a balaclava - there are hats with "veils" on them for blocking out UV rays, and with mosquito netting. They might be enough to foil CCTV camera and digital identification programs, if they were dark enough. I used to have a camoflauged ball cap with a face veil, for duck hunting... Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:13:18 -0600 (CST) From: "Chris Gilmore" Subject: Re: Policy by minority I think we all could watch how we respond to each other don't you? There are alot of people reading this list but won't chance giving their opinion because of the responses they read now. Bet on it. I have heard from some of them off list and by phone since I forwarded my opinion. I sure got plenty of mileage from one posting of my personal opinion. BTW I am not insisting that it be my way or else, it was just merely my opinion. In this case lets get on with it so we can form something with teeth that all will support. If we look south at the NRA we'll see what organizing can accomplish when Governments take notice and respond. Something to "shoot"for.............. Chris > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Chris Gilmore > Date: Friday, July 29, 2005 4:37 pm > Subject: Re: Policy by minority > > > Or just maybe they respect each other's difference of opinion and > > defend the > > right to have and express one freely without fear. Yes I may need > > thicker > > skin especially when the "barbs"are coming from those who are on the > > same > > side. > > I expect "barbs" from the Anti-gun crowd.----------- > > Clean up your responses with a lot more respect for peoples > > feelings and you may see more people getting into the fray. > > Clean up 'my' responses, or is that a collective "your"? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:01:16 -0600 (CST) From: paul chicoine Subject: Re: London Police Tactical Unit headgear. I believe its called hiding one's identity or wearing a disguise. The last time I heard about this was at, I think it was the G8 meetings, in Quebec City. In any event it was against the law to cover one's face. I think but am not sure it may have been a municipal bylaw passed for the occasion. Paul C. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Mills" To: Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 12:55 PM Subject: Re: London Police Tactical Unit headgear. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Mark L Horstead > > --- Bruce Mills wrote: > > > Of course, if *you* were to walk down the street > > > with a balaclava on, you'd be stopped toute de > > > suite and asked why... > > > > Context again. One man, civilian clothes etcetera. > > But what crime am I committing by walking down the street wearing a > balaclava? > > Yours in Liberty, > Bruce > Hamilton > Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:25:51 -0600 (CST) From: "Bruce Mills" Subject: Re: London Police Tactical Unit headgear. - ----- Original Message ----- From: paul chicoine > I believe its called hiding one's identity or wearing a disguise. > The last time I heard about this was at, I think it was the G8 > meetings, in Quebec City. > > In any event it was against the law to cover one's face. I think but > am not sure it may have been a municipal bylaw passed for the > occasion. Wearing a "disguise" only counts if you are committing an idictable offense: CCC 351(2) Every one who, with intent to commit an indictable offence, has his face masked or coloured or is otherwise disguised is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years. They tried to pass a bylaw in Quebec City to make it illegal to cover your face for the G8 meetings, but the people took to the streets howling in protest, and they backed off. As far as I am concerned, *my* identity belongs to *me*, and nobody has any right to know who I am without my permission, writhout legal grounds to demand it of me, or a with a warrant. Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 01:44:33 -0600 (CST) From: "Murray" Subject: Cdn Professional Police Ass'n Ladies & Gentlemen, The CPPA is looking for donations to carry on with "good causes." But I seem to recall that it's on record as supporting the Firearms Act. Does anyone know for sure? Regards//jmb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 01:50:32 -0600 (CST) From: "Bruce Mills" Subject: Re: Cdn Professional Police Ass'n - ----- Original Message ----- From: Murray > The CPPA is looking for donations to carry on with "good causes." > > But I seem to recall that it's on record as supporting the Firearms > Act. Does anyone know for sure? The CPPA is the amalgamation of the Canadian Police Association and the National Association of Professional Police. Of course, we know that the CPA sold us out for their DNA registry and whatever for endorsing C-68, but as far as I was ever able to determine, the NAPP never did have a position on it. The CPPA was supposed to take a vote on the matter at one of their inagural meetings, but I could never find where they actually did. My guess is that failing anything to the contrary, the old policy still stands. The CPPA AGM should be coming up, sometime in August. They might have an agenda on their website. Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 10:20:33 -0600 (CST) From: Linda FreefallCrusader Subject: Re: The Ultimate Authority Mark responding to Bruce who responded to Rick... > Yes, "reality" and the "rule of law" have their > places, but if all we do is accept "reality", as is, > unquestioned, then what's "possible", not to mention > what's "right", must necessarily go out the > window. After all, the law is the law, and the > majority has spoken - no matter how wrong they are. No. Nowhere did Rick suggest mindless acceptance - unless I really missed something. Strive for change, but realize what is achievable and what is not, or what can be changed now and what may have to wait awhile. Linda's comment: I have to agree with Mark on this. Many people think that if the Convservatives get in that the Firearms Act will be scrapped in its entirety and there will be nothing to replace it. That's NOT what will happen. The RFC must continue to strive for change, but must also be realistic on what can be changed now and what might have to wait. Part of the reason I did my survey was to attempt to determine what was THE most important aspect to change (What do firearms owners want?). You won't all get your wishes granted, and some wishes won't happen right away. But you can hope and trust that some things will be granted (and it will not necessarily be via the Conservatives). It's just not realistic to expect anything else. Also, it's best to remain a 'swing' vote, not 'committing' to one party or the other. The RFC needs a position to 'bargain' with, and it's the swing vote that does it every time. > If all you do is assert the total supremacy of the > "rule of law" as being the "reality", I don't see > why you have bothered to spend so much time in > opposition to the Firearms Act. I trust you will > leave us to our own, deluded, devices now. But the law as it is is the reality, like it or not - and few of us here like it. And it's not the entire reality either. Public ignorance, fear, mob mentality, and prejudice come to mind. Those have to be overcome, too. Linda's comment: Again right. The law is the reality, right now, today. Doesn't mean it will be tomorrow though. And it will likely take educating the masses to change the ignorance, fear, mob mentality, and prejudice. You can bet if the RFC gets any changes, significant or minor, the anti's will be screaming and the public will react. The letters to editors are good in changing public perception, but the reality even there is that not everyone reads those letters, and not everyone even gets the papers. The RFC is not reaching the general public, and it must in order to educate them. Gosh, those billboards could have made leaps and bounds in the public perception, and it's truly unfortunate that things played out as they did. Think about this... when was the last time you saw ANY advertising for the RFC (other than in a firearms mag)? The RFC is NOT in the public eye, so it is not an issue for the general public. Get in their face and in their eye, and people might be swayed, otherwise, the reality is that John and Jane Doe suburbia couldn't care less about our predicament. Reality also, is that if we had ONE comprehensive group that all could fall under, with reps across the country, the RFC probably would stand a better chance of getting "in their face". However I disagree it needs to be an "office" in Ottawa, but should be one or two "reps" in Ottawa. Otherwise there is far too much danger it will become just another "Ontario group" - not a "national group" - of which there are many successful ones already, but they have little influence in other provinces. The RFC needs a NATIONAL presence, in the fullest sense of the word, that holds meetings by teleconference, and possibly an AGM in a different province (picked by names in a hat) every year. I have a very strong suspicion that the "Ottawa" concept is a major reason Al Doran's attempt failed. You need a speaker or two in Ottawa, that could for example do a media press release on the steps of Parliament, and interact personally with an MP or two when needed, but the 'office' itself need not be there at all. And the 'Head Office' could in fact change from year to year as a new President and Secretary are elected, as it could be the province they live in. Right now, there are some really good groups out there, but they are specific to their province only so their effect is limited. The RFC must think "NATIONAL" in scope. > Personally, I prefer Liberty to the Tyranny of the > Majority, and even the Rule of Law, when it > infringes upon MY RIGHTS. You may do what you like. Who wouldn't? But, again, without laws to codify behaviour anarchy would quickly follow, even though most people do not need laws or fear of punishment to know right from wrong and to act accordingly. - --- I do not always agree with either of you, but even on the odd occasion when I do not (or don't want to) at least I am given something to think about, which I appreciate. Bruce later replied to Mark with: One person's right to "freedom" does not include the right to infringe upon the rights of others. If each and every one of us do not believe in, act like, and demand that our individual, inalienable, and sovereign rights are supreme against the majority and the tyrannical, then we don't have a philosopical leg to stand on. We might as well pack it in right now. Linda's comment: Absolutely correct that "one person's right to 'freedom' does not include the right to infringe upon the rights of others." However, sometimes a right you or I have does 'overlap' and infringe in some way on the rights of others. Where is the balance between the two when that happens? Often it is a compromise. Also, as Mark says "most people do not need laws or fear of punishment to know right from wrong and to act accordingly." NOT said is that therein lies a big part of the problem at hand. People frequently feel they do know right from wrong, so really do NOT pay attention to the "laws". We all know for a fact that the majority of the people do NOT have a clue what the Firearms Act says, nor what rights it infringes, AND they couldn't care less if it doesn't affect them. They think the 'idea' of a 'safer community' (so THEY don't have to 'worry') is okay, but they really haven't a clue what the Act (law) actually says. If they did, they would have told the feds they had it ALL WRONG right at the beginning and never agreed for it to become law. The old law was fine, but needed improvements in the 'criminal use'. Think about this.... You drive a car (majority) yet DO YOU know all of the Motor Vehicle Act? No... you only pay attention to the parts that affect you, like speed limits, etc. Same is true of others. If they are not firearms owners they haven't a clue what the Firearms Act says, nor could they care less. It's up to us to show them how BAD this legislation is, and that it not only affects us, but affects them too in so many ways (When feds bring legislation against law-abiding people that is totally opposite of what the feds are supposed to be doing, which is bringing legislation against criminal activity. And if they 'create' a paper-crime in one area, how long before another and another is created?) JMO and thoughts on this subject, and hopefully a thing or two to think about... Linda ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 10:38:23 -0600 (CST) From: "Bruce Mills" Subject: Re: The Ultimate Authority I guess I'll just keep my mouth shut from now on, since my ideas are so unpalatable and obviously wrong. The naysayers and the can't-be-doners have the floor. You don't understand liberty, let alone deserve it, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 12:32:08 -0600 (CST) From: Linda FreefallCrusader Subject: Re: Poster - SGI - TAKE ACTION Tracey wrote: "I saw a poster in the female washroom in a Moose Jaw bar. The poster is from SGI (Sask government Insurance) and on one side it had a bottle of beer with the caption "load the gun" on the other side it had a picture of a steering column with a key pointed towards the ignition with the caption "fire the gun" I tryed to get the poster but it was in one of those new secure poster holders." Bruce Mills replied with: For questions on the public awareness initiatives, contact: Shannon Ell, Supervisor, Traffic Safety Promotion, SGI, Regina (306) 775-6179 sell@sgi.sk.ca Call her up and ask her for one. Also ask if she has a digital version, as in a .gif or .jpg file. - -------------------------------- Linda adding more info on SGI (from their web site)... ** The Board of Directors could be contacted with complaints (link below). The Board of Directors is responsible for setting direction, monitoring and reporting achievement, and analyzing, evaluating and "taking corrective action" for the corporation (RFC wants corrective action taken). ** SGI's Board of Directors is "appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council". The Board consists of nine external directors and one director appointed as representative of the Canadian Office and Professional Employee's (COPE) union. Both the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Board are external directors. ** You can contact SGI directly. From North America call SGI at 1-800-667-9868. EVERYONE should call... ** Corporate Governance - Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) and SGI Canada are governed by "The Saskatchewan Government Insurance Act, 1980." and "The Automobile Accident Insurance Act," and are subject to the provisions of "The Crown Corporations Act, 1993," which gives the "Crown Investments Corporation of Saskatchewan (CIC), the holding company for Saskatchewan's commercial Crown corporations, the broad authority to seth the direction of the Corporation. Where required by legislation or policy dire ctive, SGI submits performance management and investment decisions for review and approval by "CIC" and the "provincial cabinet." Through its Chair, who is an outside director, "the SGI Board of Directors is accountable to the Minister Responsible for SGI." The Minister functions as a link between the Corporation and CIC and cabinet, as well as the "provincial legislature." http://www.sgi.sk.ca/sgi_internet/sgi_pub/about_sgi/governance/index.h tml Board of Directors (full list here with city but no contact info): http://www.sgi.sk.ca/sgi_internet/sgi_pub/about_sgi/governance/bod.htm l Chair: Nancy E. Hopkins, Lawyer, McDougall Gauley, Saskatoon, SK Vice-Chair: J. Walter Bardua, Retired Insurance Professional, Nanaimo, BC The Minister's involved could be contacted with complaints. The Lieutenant Governor could also be contacted since she plays a roll. Her info is: "Her Honour, The Honourable Dr. Lynda Haverstock, Lieutenant Governor of Saskatchewan" Office of the Lieutenant Governor, Government House, 4607 Dewdney Avenue Regina, SK, S4P 3V7 Phone: 306-787-4070 Fax: 306-787-7716 Email: lgo@ltgov.sk.ca Web: http://www.ltgov.sk.ca Note: Haverstock is respected for innovative educational programs, and contributed to the book "Fighting the Farm Crisis". She is also an honorary life-membership from the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada in recognition of outstanding public service, and was appointed an Honorary Colonel of 2 Canadian Forces Flying Training School at 15 Wing in Moose Jaw. I add this info because it 'sounds' like she should be sympathetic to the RFC objection to this type of poster. ************* ALSO NOTE: SGI contributes funds to "SADD Saskatchewan" (Students against drinking and driving), and the SADD web site indicates that SGI "provides them with posters" (SGI also has info about SADD on their web site). ************* This particular poster sounds very much like a SADD/MADD poster. What we could ask of SGI (and the others connected to them) is that they at least 'vet' the posters they print for these groups, and NOT approve ones that infringe on the rights of others, and discriminate against others. "Drinking and driving" has NOTHING to do with firearms, and this is in fact a form of libel (written defamation) towards any firearms owner. (Maybe we need to start looking into some class action law suits regarding libel.) Let's not forget that perhaps there is an Ombudsman that could be complained about. I'm not sure if the SK Ombudsman would be responsible for this, but if not then SK would have something similar to the "Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority" (which we have in BC to handle non-government complaints). There are lots of ways and enough fodder to take some very strong and serious action on this. Kudos to Tracey for noticing this. Linda P.S. Anyone know if Haverstock actually LIVES in Moose Jaw? If so, perhaps she could be asked to pay a visit to the bar. P.P.S. Tracey is there any way you could go back to the bar and ask 'how long' they have had that poster up? Also can you provide us with the name of the bar so we can make calls or write letters to them also? ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V8 #279 ********************************** 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.