From: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V10 #831 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 Saturday, September 29 2007 Volume 10 : Number 831 In this issue: No charges for Halton cop Fashion designer turns guns into jewelry Re: No charges for Halton cop Re: What's with the +20's Barry on IPSC Thanks, Todd ... The Tom Flanagan Book Re: What's with the +20's RE: The Tom Flanagan Book ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 10:33:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Bruce Mills Subject: No charges for Halton cop http://www.thespec.com/article/256486 No charges for Halton cop September 29, 2007 The Hamilton Spectator (Sep 29, 2007) Hamilton police will not lay criminal charges against a Halton officer who stored his gun in a car that was stolen in Dundas. "There was no evidence to support a charge that the firearm had been stored carelessly," said police corporate communicator Catherine Martin yesterday. On Monday, a Halton detective locked his service pistol in a lockbox in the trunk of his police vehicle, along with ammunition, pepper spray, a metal baton, body armour, a police radio and handcuffs and parked it in a Dundas driveway overnight. The unmarked car was stolen, along with the weapons. Police found the car the next day but the weapons and other items were missing. Most of the weapons were later turned over to police. The officer, who works as an undercover agent in an organized crime task force called the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit, faces possible misconduct charges under the provincial police act. Police say revealing the officer's identity could compromise several ongoing undercover projects, as well as cases already in court. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 10:45:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Fashion designer turns guns into jewelry http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/search/article/84026 Fashion designer turns guns into jewelry By Kathy Matheson THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published Saturday September 29th, 2007 Appeared on page I3 There have been many proposals for keeping guns off the streets of this violence-plagued city, but maybe none as unusual as Melanie Brandon's: Melt them down into jewelry. It sounds pie-in-the-sky, yet the Philadelphia fashion designer managed to get it done. Runway models wore the gunmetal pieces at Brandon's two shows during Fashion Week in New York. The jewelry, part of her Melani Von Alexandria collection, was Brandon's creative attempt to address a harsh reality: Philadelphia is on pace for its highest murder rate in a decade. Nearly 300 people have been slain so far this year, nearly all by firearms. "Just like a lot of Philadelphians, (I was) frustrated with people getting killed left and right," Brandon said. "Why sit by and complain about what's going on? ... You have to be part of the solution." Brandon, who has been designing clothes for about eight years, was originally thinking about rhinestone accents for her latest collection but said it didn't feel right. "That just seemed so plastic to me," she said. "Everybody's done that. It really means nothing. ... I just really wanted to bring meaning to it." That's when the idea of turning guns into jewelry hit her. She wrote a proposal in July and sent it to the mayor, top police brass and the sheriff. It ended up on the desk of Paris Washington, chief weapons officer for the Sheriff's Department. Last month, he escorted Brandon and five confiscated firearms to a local welder's studio. The guns, some from domestic violence cases, had been ordered destroyed by a court. Washington, paraphrasing a Bible verse, said Brandon's idea reminded him of man laying down his swords and having them turned into plowshares. "I thought this might be a way of taking an object that, in our case, was used in violent confrontation and allow it to be turned into something beautiful," Washington said. The welder, working from Brandon's designs, made the guns into a ring, brooches and several pendants. Most are abstractly shaped. One pendant looks almost like a halved wind chime -- except it's actually the bisected barrel of a gun. A large, bowtie-shaped piece will be used as a belt buckle and a similar one will become the handle of a purse. The dark, hard pieces are paired with Brandon's feminine clothing designs in soft fabrics. One brooch is literally part of an outfit, attached above the cleavage of a spaghetti-strap, cream-coloured silk chiffon dress. Brandon has been working hard to make it in the fashion world while paying the bills with a job in commercial real estate. This week, she was preparing for a show at Philadelphia's German Society of Pennsylvania in the living room of her modest home, where pairs of sparkly high heels stood on the coffee table and models grabbed clothes off a rack. The attention she has received for the gunmetal jewelry may boost her profile, but she said her desire for success is equal to her desire to mentor young Philadelphians who might otherwise end up using firearms for lethal reasons. More gunmetal pieces are on the way -- there is still leftover material -- and a diamond company has contacted Brandon about incorporating stones into the jewelry, she said. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 09:18:24 -0600 From: Dave Jordan Subject: Re: No charges for Halton cop Well just call me cynical. Gee, why am I not surprised? One law for them, one for the little people. And I've already explained why a while ago. Later-DRGJ Quote: Deckard: [getting up to leave] "I was quit when I come in here, Bryant, I'm twice as quit now." Bryant: "Stop right where you are! You know the score, pal. You're not cop, you're little people!" [Deckard stops at the door] Deckard: "No choice, huh?" Bryant: [smiles] "No choice, pal." - -Blade Runner (1982) http://imdb.com/title/tt0083658/ - ----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce Mills Date: Saturday, September 29, 2007 8:33 am Subject: No charges for Halton cop > http://www.thespec.com/article/256486 > > No charges for Halton cop > > September 29, 2007 > The Hamilton Spectator > (Sep 29, 2007) > > Hamilton police will not lay criminal charges against > a Halton officer who stored his gun in a car that was > stolen in Dundas. > > "There was no evidence to support a charge that the > firearm had been stored carelessly," said police > corporate communicator Catherine Martin yesterday. On > Monday, a Halton detective locked his service pistol > in a lockbox in the trunk of his police vehicle, along > with ammunition, pepper spray, a metal baton, body > armour, a police radio and handcuffs and parked it in > a Dundas driveway overnight. > > The unmarked car was stolen, along with the weapons. > Police found the car the next day but the weapons and > other items were missing. Most of the weapons were > later turned over to police. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 10:31:34 -0600 From: Edward Hudson Subject: Re: What's with the +20's Here's the URL. http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/views/story.html?id=ae392611-911c - -4da5-b98e-b51fc68fc7da&p=2 On 2007 Sep 28, at 8:42 PM, Lee Jasper wrote: > Thanks to Lionel for posting the Jonas article, but can we get it - > minus all the =20's ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 10:08:53 -0700 From: "Todd Birch" Subject: Barry on IPSC Reading your post, I recalled the 'rush'of shooting a complex IPSC stage with disappearing, pop-up, moving and 'no-shoot' targets in a kaleidescopic mix ...... Decisions had to be made quickly if windows of opportunity were to be used effectively, and while the targets were not returning fire, you were conscious of the possibilty. Most of us realized the limitations of a pistol in such situations. The best scenarios were those that did not favour firepower over skill. I began the game with a S&W M66 .357, left it for a Browning 9mm which shot me into 'A' class. I then did the calibre switch to .45ACP and maintained my 'A' status. When the game allowed the .38 Super as 'major' and optical sights came on line, I went back to the M66 with 'major' loads and shot in the high end of 'B'class. We occasionally saw a few cops and we allowed them their PPC guns and even their .38 Spl. wadcutter ammo which was far below IPSC 'minor' in power factor. As a group, they did not fare well in IPSC competition. I'm going to miss Rick on the CFD, but not his vitriolic verbiage and flaming rhetoric. I won't diss a man who isn't present to defend himself. Todd ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:57:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Rob Sciuk Subject: Thanks, Todd ... > > Thanks for making your points in support of both Rick's position and mine. > I don't think he and I ever really disagreed on what you so carefully laid > out - minus the invective, flaming rhetoric and insults. It was never > about what he had to say, just his manner of expressing it. I'm happy that > I did not respond in kind in the heat of the moment as I was very much > inclined. > > By private email, Rick has sincerely and profoundly apologized for his > self-admitted, ungentlemanly, uncharacteristic manner in which he > responded to my comments. He has further indicated that he has > unsubscribed from the CFD, a decision I hope reverses as we all have > learned a lot from his knowledge and experience. > > His graciousness in so doing has elevated my esteem of him considerably, > as it takes a big man indeed to admit to to being wrong and out of line, > particularly in defence of some dearly held position. I can only surmise > that he is currently under some stress that we are unaware of and I urge > those of you who consider your selves to be his friends to be supportive > in any way he will accept. > I've been exchanging email with Rick recently, and I recognized that his retort was uncharacteristic. While I will not apologize for Rick, nor will I say more, I would ask the indulgence of this digest. Todd your words, and moreover your forgiveness speak well of your character, and in my opinion, your instincts are absolutely correct. Sincerely, Rob. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 12:24:44 -0600 From: Dennis & Hazel Young Subject: The Tom Flanagan Book http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=66549de4-f6ad-43c1-a6ad-cb20ff6d00f5 In defence of going slow 'As conservatives, we need to develop a mature view of our relationship with the Conservative party. We tried supporting ideologically pure parties. It felt great when we read the platforms, but it didn't feel so great when the votes were counted' Tom Flanagan National Post Friday, September 28, 2007 Criticism of Prime Minister Stephen Harper has recently come into vogue on the right. Economists from the Fraser Institute have condemned aspects of Conservative tax policy. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation called the 2006 budget "Liberal Lite." And people associated with the Free Dominion Web site held an organizational meeting in May, 2007, to found a new version of the Reform Party. Are things really so bad that conservatives are ready to go back to the days of division on the right? Let's look at some of the reasons why Mr. Harper has not been able to satisfy the expectations of all his erstwhile supporters. The basic point to grasp is how severe are the limitations on the power of this Conservative government. In the 2006 election, the Conservatives won 36% of the popular vote and 125 of 308 seats, giving them the most fragile minority position since Arthur Meighen tried to govern in 1925 with 116 of 245 seats. By winning enough seats to beat the Liberals, the Conservatives earned the chance to form a government and get control of the executive branch, but that does not imply control of the House of Commons. The government is unable to pass legislation without the support of at least one other party. In governmental institutions outside the House of Commons, the situation is even more difficult. At the time of writing, there are 63 Liberals in the Senate, compared to only 23 Conservatives. The Senate has not actually rejected any Conservative legislation,but it held up the Accountability Act for eight months so the Liberals could use their leadership convention for fundraising purposes. After 13 years of Jean Chretien and Paul Martin, the courts are heavily stacked with Liberal appointments. With that kind of roster sitting on the bench, constitutionally adventurous Conservative legislation is likely to get a rough ride. And then there's the federal civil service, philosophically inclined toward interventionist government and heavily sprinkled with capital-l Liberals after 13 years in which Liberal political staffers had preferment in applying for public service jobs. The situation can be improved with a judicious mix of retirements, transfers and new appointments, but it's not something that can be immediately transformed. The same is true of Crown corporations and regulatory commissions. In spite of all these obstacles, the Harper government has managed to do many things that conservatives should applaud. Below is a partial list: - - - Broad-based tax relief through reduction of the GST from 7% to 6%. - - - Stopping the movement toward a national system of publicly operated child care centres. Paul Martin's Liberals were on the verge of creating a new version of public education, but Mr. Harper stopped it dead with his $1,200/year Child Care Allowance. - - - Making the federal income tax less hostile to families. - - - Rearming the Canadian Forces. - - - Multiple criminal-justice initiatives to reinforce the concepts of personal responsibility and punishment for wrongdoing. Several of these have been held up by the opposition parties in committee; but whether or not they pass, it is clear that Mr. Harper has changed the terms of public discussion on justice issues. - - - An amnesty for long-gun owners. - - - Breaking up the Wheat Board's monopoly by introducing dual marketing for malting barley. - - - Cancellation of the Court Challenges Program, under which public money had been used to support litigation against federal and provincial legislation. - - - Paying down the federal debt by $13.2-billion in September, 2006. - - - Pulling the plug on the Kelowna Accord, which would have pumped an additional billion dollars into aboriginal programming, with no clear standards of accountability. - - - Introducing a regime for controlling greenhouse gas emissions that ignores the completely unrealistic Kyoto targets, and which Canadian business leaders and provincial governments have said they can live with. These are all small steps. Maybe in some cases, the government could go farther and faster. But the important thing is that they are all in the right direction. I would propose this as the crucial test for conservatives in deciding whether to support government policy -- is it in the right direction? Politics is a game that goes on forever. You don't have to win everything at once. The most important thing is to start to win even small victories, to lay the basis for bigger victories yet to come. We can divide the actions of a Conservative government into four categories: 1. Those that do not involve any conservative principle. Conservatism is not a totalitarian ideology claiming to have a prescription for everything. I can't see that there is a conservative position on, say, whether the federal government should own or lease office buildings. An enormous amount of government business is basically non-ideological; and on such matters, conservatives may read the evidence differently and come to conflicting conclusions. 2. Incremental steps toward conservative goals, as listed above. Conservatives should support such measures without seeking immediate perfection. 3. Acceptance of a non-conservative status quo in some policy area, e.g., supply management of poultry products through monopolistic marketing boards. This coercive policy of price and quantity controls created by the Liberals is profoundly anti-market and anti-freedom, but it has been in effect for decades and is popular in rural parts of Ontario and Quebec where the Conservative party must win in order to have any chance of forming a government. 4. Going the wrong way. It is one thing for a Conservative government to live with a situation that it did not create; it is quite another for it to make things worse by embracing socialist principles. I believe conservative-minded people should be openly critical if that happens. There are many pressures on a Conservative government, and it is possible for it to be pushed totally off course. When that threatens to happen, conservatives must exert their own pressure. My vision of incremental conservatism means endorsing even small steps if they are in the right direction, and accepting inaction in areas that can't feasibly be changed right now, but opposing government initiatives that are clearly going the wrong way. But even when they feel the need to oppose, it would be wise for conservatives to keep a sense of proportion, to remember that a Conservative government is likely to deliver more of what they want than a Liberal or NDP government. Some may think such incremental conservatism seems like pretty thin gruel. What about Margaret Thatcher, who reformed British labour law and privatized ailing state industries? Or Ronald Reagan, who brought down the Soviet empire? Or, closer to home, Ralph Klein, who tamed runaway deficits, took on the public service unions and got Alberta's government out of the business of owning businesses? Why should we settle for baby steps rather than giant strides? Part of the answer to that question concerns the security of position that these iconic conservative leaders enjoyed. Margaret Thatcher and Ralph Klein presided over majority governments in a disciplined parliamentary system. Not fearing defeat in the House, they also didn't have to worry about whether the head of state would be reliable in a constitutional crisis. Ralph Klein, moreover, was operating in unicameral legislatures, so he didn't have to worry about getting legislation through a second chamber. Mrs. Thatcher had to contend with the House of Lords, but that body in her day had an in-built Conservative majority. Of course, Ronald Reagan faced quite a different situation. Although the Republicans controlled the Senate in the years 1981-86, the Democrats controlled the House of Representatives the whole time Reagan was president. Thus he could not get legislation passed without making some compromises. But his own personal position was secure, because an American president is elected for a four-year term and cannot be ousted by the legislative branch, except under extraordinary circumstances. The other part of the answer concerns the popular mandate with which these leaders were elected to office. In all cases, voters were ready for sweeping change because of preceding years of misgovernment. When Margaret Thatcher was elected, Britain was the "sick man of Europe" and the economy was reeling from runaway strikes and other forms of labour blackmail. Ronald Reagan succeeded Jimmy Carter, under whom the United States had reached a 20th-century low point -- double-digit inflation and unemployment, rationing of gasoline, Soviet expansionism throughout the Third World and Americans held hostage in Tehran. Ralph Klein was elected when Alberta's budgetary deficit was spiralling out of control and provincially owned corporations were losing money by the billion. Stephen Harper, in contrast, was not voted into office on any great wave of discontent. Canadians were troubled by Liberal corruption, but they did not perceive Canada as being in deep trouble. Indeed, the first decade of the 21st century has been a good one for Canada. Unemployment is now at a 30-year low, and the stock market is at an all-time high. The federal budget is balanced, and the national debt is being paid off. (Witness yesterday's announcement that Mr. Harper's government would be using a $13.8-billion surplus for this purpose.) Taxes are still too high, but they have been reduced from the historic heights they reached in the 1990s. Separatism is at a low ebb in Quebec. No one is seriously threatening to break up the country. Canadians want honest, competent government, but they are not demanding sweeping change. We as conservatives can easily produce a list of things that we believe need radical reform, but there is no majority support for drastic action. Mr. Harper would be quickly defeated in parliament and in the next election if he undertook a Thatcher-like program to beat back a crisis that Canadian voters don't believe exists. As conservatives, we need to develop a mature view of our relationship with the Conservative Party of Canada. We tried the experiment of supporting ideologically pure conservative parties. It felt great when we read the campaign platforms, but it didn't feel so great when the votes were counted in three national elections and we lost each time. After these losses, members of both the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives voted overwhelmingly to merge, to create a truly national party capable of winning an election and governing Canada. We came close in 2004 and succeeded in 2006. The Conservative party has now been in power for just 18 months. It has made commendable progress toward conservative goals on a number of issues, left some other areas untouched and perhaps gone in the wrong direction in a couple of respects. That seems like a pretty good record. To expect perfection from government is a millenarian impulse. Conservatives know that all human beings are fallible, that all institutions are flawed, that all expectations are bound to be disappointed sooner or later. As Conservative supporters, we should celebrate the achievements of our Conservative government and lend a hand to getting it back on track if it goes off the rails. tflanaga@ucalgary.ca - Tom Flanagan is professor of political science at the University of Calgary and former campaign manager of the Conservative Party of Canada. This essay is adapted from a longer work published this week on C2C: Canada's Journal of Ideas, and is available at www.c2cjournal.ca ©Copyright2007. Canadian Journal of Ideas Inc. All Rights Reserved. - -- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 14:05:11 -0600 From: Dave Jordan Subject: Re: What's with the +20's Lee; All of the =20 symbols are ASCII soft return symbols that Applemail appears to pick up when ever one of our Apple/Mac users tries to copy and post something to the CFD. The CFD 's software then processes and show's these ASCII symbols. It is very frustrating for our people who are using Applemail to post anything to the CFD and I along with these folk have been trying to find out as to how we can fix this software interface problem for a very long time now, but we're still flummoxed. If ANYONE out there can please tell us how to fix this problem, either post it here or please contact me at my home E-Mail addie. It would be very much appreciated by not only myself but also the many folk that we have that use Apple/Mac computers. CFD Moderator-DRGJ - ----- Original Message ----- From: Lee Jasper Date: Friday, September 28, 2007 8:42 pm Subject: What's with the +20's > Thanks to Lionel for posting the Jonas article, but can we get it - > minus all the =20's > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 18:07:44 -0400 From: "Ed Sieb" Subject: RE: The Tom Flanagan Book Re: "people associated with the Free Dominion Web site held an organizational meeting in May, 2007, to found a new version of the Reform Party." Flanagan doesn't have his facts quite right. I was one of the people involved, in Kingston, in May 2007, at that "organizational meeting". We (FD people) had our meeting in Kingston, where we decided it wasn't going to be Reform 2 but instead it would be a pressure group to try and influence CPC policies more towards the right. We had no intentions of starting any new party. He has enough contacts within our group, to know this. Ed Sieb - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dennis & Hazel Young wrote: Subject: The Tom Flanagan Book http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=66549de4-f 6ad-43c1-a6ad-cb20ff6d00f5 In defence of going slow - -- ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V10 #831 *********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Moderator's e-mail address: mailto:d.jordan@sasktel.net 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.