From: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V9 #433 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Sender: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Errors-To: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Cdn-Firearms Digest Sunday, May 21 2006 Volume 09 : Number 433 In this issue: The AG's report and it's aftermath BP components Re: BP components Re: Lofty thinker One more thing All kindsa kewl stuff here Re: FPACertificates anyone? Re: [Bulk] Ahhhhhhhh those were the days !!!!!!! [ONTARIO] TVO Studio 2 podcasts My letter to the Abbotsford Times ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 12:07:34 -0600 (CST) From: "Al Muir" Subject: The AG's report and it's aftermath Representatives of the four signatories of the Joint Policy Statement were in Ottawa May 14-18 when the AG tabled her report on the Firearms registry. Media interest was significant in nature up until the point the Afghanistan troop deployment extension issue overtook Ms. Fraser's report. Our activities and positions were reported on in national coverage on several occasions on the main CBC network and the Newsworld network. Interest in the radio and print media resulted in a number of appearances in these forums also. In future activities such as these it would be helpful if those that cannot be present, work on the media in attempt to generate more interest. Multiple disseminations of information regarding the nature of activities would assist in wider coverage and stretch into more localized areas. Our message was clear, the Firearms Act must be repealed in its entirety. Its replacement should use a Fireams Prohibition Registry that diverts attention onto the real problem, criminals. In order to insure this result we met with as many MP's as possible to deliver the same message. The MP's we meet have various degrees of understanding of firearms laws and were representative of MP's in general. It is clear from our discussions that further work is required in this area. Thank you's are required to all those that assisted in our attempts to meet with as many MP's as possible. It was readily apparent that the return of Garry Breitkreuz and Dennis Young to the inner circle was in large part due to the pressure applied by gun owners, by our letters in support of Gary and the withholding of funds from the CPC. Scott Newark's (former CPPA registry booster and Mr. Day's former chief assistant) removal that coincided with Garry's return we believe is no coincidence. A 12 member firearms advisory committee is presently being formed with the stated goal of consultation with stakeholders. This group we are assured will not be populated with antis. It is the job of every gun owner to communicate their concerns to all members of this committee when its composition is formalized. Along with holding the committees feet to the fire we continue to be charged with the task of ensuring the CPC honors its policy commitments. Mr. Day's statements on licensing may prove to be political in nature but we must continue to work to insure those views, as stated, are not inscribed in new law. In that regard just prior to our departure from Ottawa we were assured by Mr. Day's offices that screening certification would be the order of the day. The road ahead initials two tasks. First, acquiring a clear view of the direction the CPC is headed in and second to insure members of the opposition parties join them on that path. Unfortunately lack of clarity in the first case diverts our full attention from the second. In Nova Scotia, our intention is to attempt to marry the present provincial election, to a future vote in Parliament on the Firearms Act. It is our hope that all Nova Scotian gun owners are ready to assist that planned course of action and suggest and help implement others that may arise. Al Support criminal control, Not placebo gun control ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 12:22:04 -0600 (CST) From: "M.J. Ackermann, MD" Subject: BP components The www is full of recipes to make BP. Its EASY. Finely powdered elemental sulfur is available in bulk from veterinary and equestrian supply shops. It is used to treat infections of the feet like mud fever. Potassium nitrate is similarly available. It is a widely used fertilizer. Charcoal is easy to make or just buy a bag of real hardwood charcoal pieces (NOT the briquets which have a lot of mud or clay in them). From: http://www.aeragon.com/o/me/bp.html Composition Black powder is made of potassium nitrate, charcoal and sulfur. These ingredients are mechanically combined in an approximate ratio around 75:14:11 to 75:15:10 respectively. The recipe is a bit forgiving as to the exact quantities of each ingredient. In fact, the optimum ratio was not determined until the late 18th century. It is interesting to note that black powder is a mixture of ingredients and not actually a true chemical compound. - -- M.J. Ackermann, MD (Mike) Rural Family Physician, Sherbrooke, NS Secretary, St. Mary's Shooters Association President, Guysborough County Horse and Pony Association Member All For Horses Association, Nova Scotia Equestrian Federation Box 13, 120 Cameron Rd. Sherbrooke, NS Canada B0J 3C0 902-522-2172 My email: mikeack@ns.sympatico.ca My Bio: http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/mikeack/mikeack.htm SMSA URL: www.smsa.ca "Hope for the best, but plan for the worst". ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 12:51:04 -0600 (CST) From: "mred" Subject: Re: BP components - ----- Original Message ----- From: "M.J. Ackermann, MD" > The www is full of recipes to make BP. Its EASY. > > Finely powdered elemental sulfur is available in bulk from veterinary > and equestrian supply shops. It is used to treat infections of the feet > like mud fever. > > Potassium nitrate is similarly available. It is a widely used fertilizer. PN in fertilizer is at the most 40% I believe as I use it for ice remover in the winter .I havent seen any above that percentage.It is pretty hot for that purpose but I doubt if it would make a good black powder.? ed/ontario ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 12:57:54 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: Lofty thinker B&C Beaudoin wrote: > I thought you'd like that... Actually, I didn't. >>I see nothing wrong with being a "lofty thinker" - we >*all* should be >>lofty thinkers when it comes to our rights. > > We should! Sadly, though, most don't. >>I noticed that you don't bother to actually refute my >claims... > > That you have god given rights in respect to firearms ownership? Or the > rights you have to property? Both. As to "god given", that is one way of interpreting the origin of our rights, but I don't personally subscribe to that interpretation. > Both rights you'll have a hard time convincing any but the hard core > listee here on the CFD. Kinda like telling your neighbour your religion > is the "right" one, and with that he should take up yours. Hardly. Religion is based on "faith" in what is ultimately unprovable - I can show you exactly where and how our rights come from, and why. > Lee is correct in stating "Need I remind all that the Canadian Civil > Liberties groups who looked at C-68 saw insufficient reason to challenge > it. > > Rights be damned it appears, Remember the constitutional Challenge to > C-68? No big gains there either. The "Constitutional Challenge" was not based on the matter of "rights", it was based on the matter of "division of powers" in the BNA/Constitution. > The government thinks in terms of "Collective rights" these days & is > almost daily removing individual "rights" Canadians claim they have. And the fact that it can and does somehow makes it right? > It really was "fun" having this discussion, but I can see that > attempting to change your mind about your right to own firearms & > property, is well - wrong. [I apologize for taking so long in responding to this, but I wanted to distill my argument into its most basic components, without it getting to be too long, or with making too great leaps in logic in doing so] I'm sorry you feel this way, because this is one of the most important discussions you could ever have. I think you are confused, though. Your argument is simply putting forward the current state of "political reality", and seem to be trying to claim that this means that our rights have somehow winked out of the realm of human comprehension, and have ceased to exist. I want to assure you that I am fully aware and cognisant of the current "political reality", and completely comprehend the effect that it has upon the free exercise of our rights. But this is not the issue under discussion. The issue I am trying to discuss is the "theory" of the origin and nature of our rights. Just because the "practice" does not match the "theory", that does not mean that the "theory" itself is wrong. As I said at the outset, the fact that the State currently sees fit to infringe upon our rights is more of a statement about the nature of government than it is about the nature of rights. Below, I discourse on the subject of the "nature and origin" of rights. The issue can be boiled down to one simple question: "Who owns you?". Our rights accrue to us because we, as the sapient beings we are, have the inherent physiological mental ability to not only think, but to think about thinking. This gives us the ability to think about, and plan for, the future. This gives us the ability to create artificial social organizations beyond the family/pack/tribe level. This gives us the ability to conceptualize, formulate, codify and articulate the nature of "rights". (Since these abilities are inherent to us physiologically, as part of our nature and being, this approach should satisfy both the creationists and the evolutionists, as the method by which we obtained these abilities is immaterial) Since we can think about and plan for the future, it is intuitively obvious that, in order to fully capitalize on those plans, each individual must be able to freely pursue those plans, as they see fit. This gives rise to many other of our inherent rights, but most especially the right to continue to exist in order to bring those plans to fruition, without undue interference from others. In short, the "right to life". (One can also argue that the "right to life" is inherent to every animal as a "natural" right, as an expression of the "biological imperative") In order to fulfil our own plans for ourselves, we must also be free to devote such time and effort as we see fit towards doing so. "Property" (chattel goods) is simply a physical expression of our time and effort; since your time and effort belong to you, to do with as you see fit, the fruits of that time and effort must also belong to you, and you alone. Hence, the "right to property". The right to life, that is, to continue to exist, is dependent upon being able to defend that right against those who would unjustly take it from you. Indeed, we must have both the right *and* the ability to defend this and all other rights, or the rights themselves become meaningless. Thus arise the "right to defend self and property". Further, since the right to defend that life must go with us wherever we are, and, as part of our right to fulfil our plans, we also have the right to come and go where and as we please (the right to "liberty" and "mobility"), we must also have the right to the means to defend that right wherever we go. From the right to life, the right to conduct that life as we choose - which includes the right to property, the right to liberty and mobility, - - and the right to defend all of these rights, arises the right to "keep and bear arms", in our homes, and on our persons, as the most effective means to secure them. Back to the question "Who owns you?". It is apparent that, in order to be free, you must own yourself, your time, and your effort, and the fruits of your planning, time and effort (property). If anyone else controls your time, effort or property, without your consent, you are no longer "free" - you become nothing more than property yourself. Since your rights are inherent and intrinsic to your very being, it is also apparent that you own your rights, too. They belong to you, and you alone. They are neither cumulative, nor transferable. Nobody else's rights can take precedence over yours (or yours, theirs), and no amount of numbers can make your rights subordinate to the dictates of others. Since your rights are inherent and intrinsic to your very being, they pre-exist and predate the development of the State. One of the major roles of the State is to recognize, uphold and defend your rights against unjustified infringement, by others or by the State, itself. States which do so foster the condition known as "freedom". States that deny, suppress, and infringe upon your rights foster the condition known as "tyranny". The sooner that all gun owners accept and adopt these principles of rights, the better able we will be to fight for them. As it stands, we are defeated before we even begin. In my next message, I will delaborate more upon the nature of the State, and the relationship between the State and our rights. > It seems our rights to own firearms has been whittled down to a "few" > antiques and the ever mighty flintlock! > - I love flintlocks! As do I: http://home.cogeco.ca/%7Eakimoya/Lady.Liberty.html Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 12:58:50 -0600 (CST) From: "M.J. Ackermann, MD" Subject: One more thing What follows is pure speculation on my part and is intended to be a thought experiment only. I neither counsel nor advise anyone to make their own powder As I recall this was the method used (written in second person because I hate passive voice in writing): Mix the dry ingredients thoroughly, then make a slurry with water. Do NOT oversaturate or you will lose the KNO3. Spread thinly on a cookie sheet covered with wax paper and allow to dry completely. Break up into pieces. The next step is very important to minimize risk of detonation. Take only small quantities to grind (1 oz or less?), using wooden implements like a rolling pin and cutting board. This will ensure that there is never a large amount of powder available to burn should you have an accidental ignition. Once ground, sift through stacked strainers to separate into desired F sizes. Store safely. As mentioned, this speculative conjecture is for entertainment purposes only and I in no way advise nor counsel anyone to actually attempt to make their own powder. - -- M.J. Ackermann, MD (Mike) Rural Family Physician, Sherbrooke, NS Secretary, St. Mary's Shooters Association President, Guysborough County Horse and Pony Association Member All For Horses Association, Nova Scotia Equestrian Federation Box 13, 120 Cameron Rd. Sherbrooke, NS Canada B0J 3C0 902-522-2172 My email: mikeack@ns.sympatico.ca My Bio: http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/mikeack/mikeack.htm SMSA URL: www.smsa.ca "Hope for the best, but plan for the worst". ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 12:59:17 -0600 (CST) From: "M.J. Ackermann, MD" Subject: All kindsa kewl stuff here http://www.unitednuclear.com/formulas.htm - -- M.J. Ackermann, MD (Mike) Rural Family Physician, Sherbrooke, NS Secretary, St. Mary's Shooters Association President, Guysborough County Horse and Pony Association Member All For Horses Association, Nova Scotia Equestrian Federation Box 13, 120 Cameron Rd. Sherbrooke, NS Canada B0J 3C0 902-522-2172 My email: mikeack@ns.sympatico.ca My Bio: http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/mikeack/mikeack.htm SMSA URL: www.smsa.ca "Hope for the best, but plan for the worst". ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 14:11:45 -0600 (CST) From: paul chicoine Subject: Re: FPACertificates anyone? - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lee Jasper" > Ed commented: > > > I know the OFHA is for licencing (fools) and I have already written > > them a letter telling them where to get off. After being a member for > > over 35 years I feel I have a right. > > I think part of the issue, Ed, is that many owners and org's share my > view that if we are 'required to possess' a document in order to have > state permission to "acquire and use firearms legally" whether it is a > 'certificate' or a 'licence' is a bit of a moot point. There's darn > little difference between a 1994 FACertificate and 1995 FPALicence. > > Half a dozen of us AOB owners who insist that only 'no paper' will do, > will have little impact on the course set by the PMO's Office. > > CCC 91 and 92 that 10x mentions could be equally applied to either. > > Since most of the RFC (I would expect) supported the CPC in the last > election based on its 2005 firearms policy and 2006 election platform, > why would we be shocked, now, with its legislative initiatives? > > Borrowing a phrase from Chretien, "Promises made, promises kept." > > Until Ch. 39 is amended (or repealed) 'licences' will remain a > precondition for our 'legal' firearm use. Repealing or neutering the > 'long gun registry' has no more impact on the 'licencing' or > certification of gun owners than it has on the restricted registry. > > If the gov't finds a way to FPACertificate all gun owners as intended by > Rock, or even a bit short of Rock's aspiration, Jim Flaherty's offer as > an Ontario leadership candidate, I'd certainly acknowledge that with an > attaboy. Beyond that, if the gov't gets around to providing for White > Elders to certify their and other's firearm competenceies, I'd award an > ATTABOY. > In the mean time a continuing complaint to the powers that are is a rational way to proceed. As small as the sample was in my poll on gun nutz; wanna a licence or an FAC, the FAC option comes out 3 to 1. This is what the stockerholders want. Not the licensing option (the ghost) gun owners told Day. (Give me a break, how f******g stupid do they think we are with this BS spin) The gun orgs are rolling over a too soon for my taste. If this was a contract negotiation I would be asking the union where they learned to horse trade. Then again the RFC's "unions seem to make up their minds without asking for much input from the unwashed dues payers. __________ Paul Chicoine Non Assumpsit Contract - All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice ___________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 14:15:57 -0600 (CST) From: "Robert P." Subject: Re: [Bulk] Ahhhhhhhh those were the days !!!!!!! With me it was into the early 70's in Dartmouth and Halifax. Used to take the bus to navy base in Halifax for Wednesday night range. Also used to walk through part of the city on the way to the woods for rabbit and deer. Of course where I used to go has now been fully urbanised. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 14:16:17 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: [ONTARIO] TVO Studio 2 podcasts THE POWER HOUR Tonight, from Toronto and Ottawa, our political analysts weigh-in on the week's events. __________________________________________________ OTTAWA On the national scene, Parliament approves of extending the Afghan mission; long guns are excluded from the gun registry; a Calgary oil exec doesn't pass the test to head a government commission; and Harper cozies up with Australia PM John Howard. Analysis from Ottawa with John Ibbitson of The Globe and Mail, Gilles Paquet from the University of Ottawa, and Rosemary Thompson of CTV News. http://www.tvo.org/podcasts/ottawapanel/audio/Studio2OttawaPanel051806.mp3 __________________________________________________ 4th READING At Queen's Park, the Ontario Attorney General supports the gun registry; plus, analysis of recent gains in Ontario's auto sector. Join former PC cabinet minister Janet Ecker, former Liberal cabinet minister Sean Conway, and former NDP cabinet minister David Cooke for discussion. http://www.tvo.org/podcasts/4thReading/audio/Studio24thReading051806.mp3 __________________________________________________ Ontario residents should download and listen to these audio files and send your views to Studio 2: askTVO@tvontario.org ATTN: Studio 2 Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 14:27:10 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: My letter to the Abbotsford Times Just submitted, not yet printed. Have you written a letter today? - -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Gun registry paid for so why dismantle it? Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 16:22:40 -0400 From: Bruce Mills To: editor@abbynews.com There are none so blind as they who will not see. You should take this passage to heart, as it applies directly to you and your inexplicable adherence to the Federal Liberal party's totally flawed and completely unworkable version of "gun control". On the one hand, you say that it has been completely ineffectual in its avowed purpose - combating crime - and yet on the other hand, you argue to keep it running! The mental gymnastics required to keep the cognitive dissonance of those opposing positions from making your head explode must be staggering, indeed. If it isn't working, then the only sensible and rational approach *must* be to dismantle it! You then proceed to trot out almost every flawed anti-gun argument in the book. Each and every one of these assertions have been thoroughly and completely refuted, time and time again. "Police will know where the guns are" - absolute balderdash! Only an imbecile could possibly believe this tripe. Here's why, writ large: CRIMINALS DON'T REGISTER THEIR GUNS! It is criminals and their illegally possessed firearms that the cops have to worry about the most. "Police access the firearms registry 5,000 times each day" - so what? Here's what, from the PSEP website: http://www.psepc.gc.ca/media/nr/2006/nr20060517-3-en.asp A18. The “6,500 hits” figure for the Canadian Firearms Registry On-Line (CFRO) is misleading. Whenever police officers access the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) for any reason, such as for a simple address check, an automatic hit is generated with CFRO whether the information is desired or not. This is the case, for example, with the Toronto Police Service (5,000 officers), the Vancouver Police (1,400 officers), and the BC RCMP (5,000 officers). Without any evidence of concrete results, this is nothing more than bureaucratic busywork - and "bureaucratic busywork" does not equal "effectiveness". "gun owners just have to ensure that the authorities know about them" - how is that an unreasonable expectation? It's unreasonable because it's nobody's business what kind of property I own. It's called "private property" for a reason, you know. And once they have a list of your property, they know what to look for once they decide it's no longer "acceptable" for you to own it. "(it) makes sure their guns don’t fall into the wrong hands" - this is simply transferring responsibility and punishment for the criminal acts of others onto the backs of law abiding gun owners. Guns don't just "fall into" the wrong hands. Actual criminals commit actual crimes, like breaking and entering, and theft, to steal the privately owned property of others. If you want to keep guns out of the "wrong hands", the focus must be place on the owners of those hands - the criminals. Which the Firearms Act does not do. "If the gun registry deters some people from owning firearms, and there are fewer guns "out there," are people not safer?" - in a word, NO. There is no demonstrable correlation between less gun ownership and less crime. In fact, the opposite is true - more guns mean less crime! There are more "hot" burglaries (where occupants are at home at the time) in Canada than there are in the United States. This is because criminals fear armed homeowners more than they fear being caught by police, and Canada's "gun control" laws require that guns belonging to law abiding homeowners be locked up when not actively being used. "critics predicted that the new firearms registry was merely a way for government to get an inventory, just prior to confiscation of all the guns in the country." The inescapable fact is that registration *does* lead to confiscation. With every successive round of "gun control" laws, there is always another category or list of guns that are deemed to be "inappropriate' for us mere peasants to possess. With the Firearms Act, it was all small calibre and short barrelled handguns. And were you not paying attention during the last federal election? Paul Martin and his merry band of gun haters declared that they would ban all handguns outright, with not so much as a "by your leave". The *ONLY* reason why all handguns have not yet been banned in Canada is because the Liberal Party of Canada did not win. You close by adding insult to injury: you refer to those who demand that the registry be scrapped as "radicals". Well, I am one Canadian who would much rather be a radical in support of freedom, than an extremist in support of tyranny, such as yourselves. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V9 #433 ********************************** 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 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.