Cdn-Firearms Digest Monday, May 11 2009 Volume 13 : Number 257 In this issue: Letter to HillTimes (just sent) ... Letter to toronto sun (just sent) ... RE: how is this for watered down Rob RE: Our Role in Afghanistan Re: Quotation from Fugly Horse of the Day Re: Letter: Gun owners must be licensed register guns, period Police Function first half more to come Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V13 #254 re: COIN Manual ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 10:50:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Rob Sciuk Subject: Letter to HillTimes (just sent) ... Gun owners must be licensed register guns, period (fwd) Dear Sir/Madame, Madame Laplante Edward's letter is poignant in a couple of respects. As the mother of one of the victims of a tragic incident she is entitled to be heard, and to whatever opinions she holds. Laplante Edwards has my deepest respect and sympathy, but those would subvert her pain to their own political ends do not share the same moral authority. Alas, the Firearms Registry would not have saved her daughter. Nor will it ever save any Canadian, as has been shown to be the case with the handgun registry which has been in place since 1934 and has yet to save a life or to solve a crime, as Deputy PM Herb Gray actually stated in the House some years back. I fear that like most Canadians, and all politicians, Madame Laplante Edwards has confused firearms registration with an effective gun control regime. The Canadian Firearms Act provides much less safety than its defenders would have us believe, and indeed inverts the logic which might have proven to be efficacious. What we should be registering are violent criminals, parolees, and those who have court ordered restraining orders and firearm prohibitions rather than law abiding target shooters and duck hunters. As for the vast sums of monies wasted upon our existing laws, and they are considerable, they have not "saved one life". Had we instead diverted this huge expense into a mental health outreach program for the depressed and despondent wretches who act out, as did the murderer of Laplante Edward's daughter, then perhaps other mothers might be spared her grief. To continue as we have defies all logic, and defiles the very memory of those who are its victims. Have we learned nothing? Sincerely, Robert S. Sciuk Oshawa, Ont. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 11:09:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Rob Sciuk Subject: Letter to toronto sun (just sent) ... Mothers touched by gun violence rip feds (fwd) Dear Sir/Madame, I was touched by the outpourings of the mothers who lost children to firearm violence, but I suppose that was the whole point of an organized political event on Mother's day. I am more than a bit concerned however that emotion and rhetoric are replacing reason and logic in defending the indefensible. Firearms registration would not have saved any of the lives mourned by the grieving mothers, and we know this because we've been doing it since 1934 when Canada's handgun registry came into force. Why then do we continue to waste valuable resources which could instead be far better spent on such proven measures as enforcing parole conditions, and better policing to stop the flow of smuggled illegal handguns? Declaring firearms registration a "shrine" to victims of violence who weren't in any way protected by it in the first place seems to me simply besmirching their memory. If we truly want to honour those innocents who have died, and prevent the grief of future mothers, why not stop this expensive farce, and instead use the monies on the measures which are truly meaningful? Sincerely, Robert S. Sciuk ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 11:31:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Rob Sciuk Subject: RE: how is this for watered down Rob From: "Barry Snow" > > I guess my point here is that while they could destroy registrations by > OIC this is not their intention. The proposed bill only removes the > requirement for the paper, it does not remove the requirement for > registering. > > While previous governments have used this vehicle to make licenses into > six and seven and eight year licenses for the convenience of the > processing center, this government could make them ten year or lifetime > to prevent criminalizing those who have actually been foolish enough to > attempt to comply with this draconian legislation. I know of several > people at this moment who have no license but for the bogus "amnesty". > > I can hardly imagine a circumstance that would be more urgent, and Ann > McLellan used this excuse under the law more than once. > > sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander > Barry This is indeed the seminal issue. As most of us are aware, the original intent of the CFA was to confiscate our firearms over a generation (boiling frogs). In keeping, the Liberals enacted a sweeping set of powers to the Justice Minister, and allowed via Orders in Council (OIC's) the ability to ban, proscribe, regulate, license or tax *ANYTHING* (this is not restricted to firearms btw). This of course was intended over a succession of Liberal Minister's of Justice to provide for progressive program of confiscations. What they did *NOT* make allowance for was intervening governments who did not agree with the original intent of firearm confiscation. Apparently, there haven't been any -- to date. The Justice Minister could legally change the ATT regs, the Registry regs and all the proscriptions, up to and including the list of firearms covered arbitrarily under section 12(x). (I'm not entirely sure of calibre and bbl length restrictions, but a simple review of what is actually in laws vs regulation would easily determine that). The real question is, why haven't the Conservatives fixed the regulations via OIC's? I remain, shall we say - perplexed (if not yet apoplectic). What's Preston up to these days?? Rob Sciuk ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 11:41:52 -0400 From: "Mark L Horstead" Subject: RE: Our Role in Afghanistan > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark L Horstead [mailto:Loachman@sympatico.ca] > Sent: 10-May-09 15:49 > To: 'cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca' > Subject: RE: Our Role in Afghanistan > I would not be surprised to see more "conventional" > operations on the part of the Pakistani Army, if they decide > to get serious, and a lot less concern over civilian > casualties when they do. The crystal ball was really humming: New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/world/asia/12pstan.html?_r=1 Pakistan Says 700 Militants Killed in Intense Raids By SALMAN MASOOD and ALAN COWELL Published: May 11, 2009 ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - Pakistani Air Force fighter jets pounded militant positions in the Swat Valley on Monday as the military pressed its offensive on three Taliban-held districts northwest of the capital, the interior minister said. Rehman Malik, Pakistan's interior minister, told reporters in Islamabad that 700 militants had been killed in the last four days of intense fighting - a far higher figure than has been reported by the military. No official reason was provided for the discrepancy. At the weekend, the military put the number of killed militants at around 140 and has reported additional militants killed since then. The Taliban have not commented on their own casualties since the start of the latest offensive, and the death toll cannot be independently verified because aid agencies and journalists are barred from the conflict areas. In Geneva, meanwhile, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, chronicling the area's unfolding humanitarian crisis, said over 360,000 civilians in the past 12 days have fled from the fighting and registered with the agency as displaced people. The figure brought to over 900,000 the number of people registered as uprooted in successive waves of fighting since last August, William Spindler, a spokesman for the international refugee body, said in a telephone interview. In his remarks, Mr. Malik, the interior minister, vowed that the military offensive would continue until the militants were crushed. He said that 700 militants, along with that 22 government troops, had been killed in the ongoing military operation. Pakistan launched the offensive under strong American pressure to reverse advances towards the capital by the Taliban and following the collapse of a contentious ceasefire which gave the Taliban sweeping power to impose Islamic law in the Swat Valley. The fighting has also spread into the adjoining districts of Buner and Dir. "The operation will continue until the last Talib," Mr. Malik said, using the singular form of the word Taliban. "We haven't given them a chance. They are on the run. They were not expecting such an offensive." The Pakistani Army has estimated that a force of about 4,000 militants took advantage of the peace agreement in northwestern Pakistan in February to seize control of much of Swat. Residents of Swat, once a picturesque touristic valley, continued to move out of the district to refugee tent camps established in adjacent districts of Swabi and Mardan. Concerns have grown over the government's capacity to provide immediate relief. On Monday, opposition leader and former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif visited relief camps in Mardan district. Mr. Sharif, a centre-right politician, whose popularity has soared in recent months, said that those who were responsible for the displacement of local people deserved "no leniency". "He is endorsing the military operation", said Arif Rafiq, a political analyst. "It's vague - it gives him wiggle room afterwards. It doesn't expressly support the military operations, but it's as strong a tacit approval as you can get." In another development, news reports said that at least 11 people were killed and five injured when a suicide bomber detonated explosives near a police post in Dara Adam Khel, a northwestern town. Salman Masood reported from Islamabad, Pakistan, and Alan Cowell from Paris. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 10:12:10 -0600 From: "Jim Szpajcher" Subject: Re: Quotation from Fugly Horse of the Day Paul - We may have to agree to disagree on some of these issues. > Please be serious. When has Interpol ever been helpful in anything like > this? The Taliban were threatening the US - the terrorists they were > harboring had just attacked us, and the Taliban refused to cooperate in > bringing bin Ladin etc. to justice. It may help to review what happened after 9/11. The Taliban did NOT refuse to cooperate in bringing bin Laden to justice. http://www.j-n-v.org/AW_briefings/ARROW_briefing005.htm >> Whether women are shot in Kabul or not is of no concern to Americans. > > That is patently untrue. In a vacuum, probably not worth invading halfway > around the world, but certainly a concern. Balderdash. The proof is in the civilian casualties caused by the American use of force in Afghanistan and Iraq. If the lives of women in Afghanistan were so valuable, why have the Americans and allies insisted on killing so many of them for the past 7 1/2 years? http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0506/breaking26.htm http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/world/asia/07afghan.html?_r=1&th&emc=th > Nothing is ever "necessary" - but great powers do not let themselves be > attacked without bringing the battle to the source of the attack. Think about it: Afghanistan is a country without access to the ocean. Nothing can enter or leave without crossing another country's boundaries. There never was an easier country to isolate. There has rarely been a country so difficult to control. The problem is as Powell stated it: If you break it, it's yours. > Were > democratizing Germany and Japan, fighting and winning the Cold War, and > helping spread democracy and human rights through our hemisphere, also a > "demonstration of hubris of the highest order"? > Was the Royal Navy's suppression of the slave trade hubris? These are questions outside the current discussion. > We're not perfect, but we > sometimes try to - and occasionally succeed in - helping those less > fortunate, including Afghan women and schoolgirls. I can see how well the U.S. is helping those less fortunate Afghan women and children: Unemployment: 40% Oil Consumption: 5,036 barrels/day - this is in a country the size of Texas, with a population the size of California. [this works out to a daily consumption average of 0.0062931 gallons (0.8 fluid ounces) of oil per person.] Literacy: 72% of the Afghan population cannot read and write at age 15 or older. GDP (2008) - $12.83 billion. [The U.S. is spending more on its military mission of controlling the country than the country generates in its entire economy.] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/af.html > No, pretty much the opposite happened - after the fall of the Soviet > Union, > we tended to our isolationist roots, and lost interest in Afghanistan. > The Taliban took control, and the rest is history. I could accept that if it wasn't for Chalmers Johnson's (The Sorrows of Empire) which showed that in September, 2001, the United States had at least 725 foreign bases in 38 countries, and had 254,788 military personnel deployed in 153 countries. This is hardly the mark of an isolationist policy. > I don't recall a declaration of victory over the Taliban - but I can > certainly think of worse miscalculations, probably the most recent of > which was having no plan for the occupation of Iraq. Check out: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/central/05/01/afghan.combat/ http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a050103prematureend http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2003/05/mil-030501-rfel-162633.htm Rumsfeld stated: "We're at a point where we clearly have moved from major combat activity to a period of stability and stabilization and reconstruction activities". He made this speech with Karzai a few hours before Bush said the same thing about Iraq, so that there would be an appearance of total victory - especially given that the war in Iraq was barely 6 weeks old, while the U.S. had been in Afghanistan for 1 1/2 years. > As an aside, I'm no Bush defender - he was a decent president only by > comparison with what we've stuck ourselves with now. I agree. I have grave concerns about where Obama is taking the U.S., but I'm not convinced that McCain could do a better job, given the mess that Bush left. >> Even with Osama bin Laden still on the loose, as he is today. > > He's not "on the loose" - he's holed up, maybe dead, and (apparently) > quite > ineffective. He wasn't running around before 2001, either, if you recall, being holed up not far from where he presumably is today. And he keeps issuing these little audio and video statements, nearly 8 years after Bush declared that he wanted him "dead or alive". Bush is gone, and he's still here. That's what I define as success. > Yes, those are about right - but of course not _all_ defense spending is > in Itaq and Afghanistan. Less than one-third actually is - the 1.4% I > mentioned. I agree: not all defence spending is in Iraq and Afghanistan. My point is that the level of defence spending is unsustainable, given the economic crisis that faces the U.S. > Good Lord - back to that same "interest attributable to the military" > nonsense. Again, please, be serious, or at least discerning. World War > II is not Afghanistan. > > Paul Sepe > Lancaster, NH May it stay that way. Thanks for taking the time to post. Jim Szpajcher St. Paul, AB ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 11:01:56 -0600 From: "Barry Snow" Subject: Re: Letter: Gun owners must be licensed register guns, period > Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 08:40:11 -0500 > From: 10x <10x@telus.net> > Subject: Re: Letter: Gun owners must be licensed register guns, period > > 1) The Conservative Party Of Canada has not made any changes to the > Firearms licensing owners scheme or the gun registry. There has been no > "dismantling to date. > > 2) The Amnesty was aimed at getting folks with firearms and expired > licenses to comply with the criminal code. Every amnesty so far has had more to do with the inability of the Canadian Firearms Program (previously center) to issue licenses or registrations in a timely manner. Barry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 15:04:00 -0400 From: "candlestick" Subject: Police Function first half more to come Gentle readers. Enclosed is the first half of the Police function document. There are many more pages and I type slowly trying not to make mistakes. Any typos are mine, any spelling mistakes are theirs. Read Carefully, and see exactl;y why we are where we are today. This train is already out of the yard, and the light at the end of the tunnel is the train going to hit all forearms owners For the Canadian Digest: I have retyped the document known as the POLICE FUNCTION. This document came to me by way of an intrepid and dogged individual and a FOI request. This document was dated June 1978 and came from the Justice Minister to the Solicitor General Here we go: The Police Function in Canada as a Control and Enforcement Agency In regards to: 1) Amendments to the firearms section of the Criminal Code of Canada 1977, as partially proclaimed 01 jan 78, balance which will be proclaimed as of 01 Jan 79 (originally scheduled for proclamation 01 June 78) 2) Amendments to the Explosives Act , in regards to Ammunition and Ammunition Components (by order in council as of 01 June 78) Background As regards to the Police function inn Canada, prior to passage of the fore-going it was the opinion of the administrations: 1) That in the face of mass civil disobedience the use of force had limited capabilities... 2) That in the face of mass civil disobedience the display of available force would not have credibility. .. as far as an armed and organized Public was concerned and it was felt that in the interests of the function that it was desirous to ensure that the Public be descretely disarmed over a period of the forthcoming five years. The foregoing is not entirely the opinion of the administration of the Function, but is one which haven voiced generally even at the rank and file level. that being "the absemce of firearms in the hands of the Public would increase the safety of a Patrolman's work" With the passage of the Firearms section of the Criminal Code of Canada Amendments , having been predetermined that in regards to the Functions ability as a Control and Enforcement Agency there was: 1) A lack of personnel suitably indoctrinated at specific assignment locales and sectors within the proposed Control Structure. 2) A requirement for adequate training and indoctrination time 3) A requirement for time to phase in the various levels and sectors of the proposed Control Structure independently of one another in a manner which would not create alarm, nor allow premature rapport. 4) A requirement for time to nullify the credibility of alarmists and dissenters. 5) The necessity to amend the Explosive Act in Conjunction with the amendments to the Firearms Section in an independent manner. It was therefore established that: 1) firstly those portions of the Amendment to the Firearms Section which dealt with participation would be proclaimed 01 Jan 78 as they contained no real additions to the ACT which might draw strong adverse publicity. 2) Secondly , those portions of the amendments dealing with the new Regulatory System involving Public participation requiring the Control System be phased in prior to proclamation, were assigned tentative proclamation date 01 Jan 79, later established as 01 Jan 79. Control and Enforcement Agency (continued 2) 3) Thirdly, following 01 Jan 79 implementation of Control Structure within the Police Function on Final Proclamation, All civilian components of the system will be quietly phased out or neutralized General Methods to be Employed to Effect Disarmament (01 Jan 78 effective) 1) Public Amnesty under the control of the Police Function on a nation wide basis, publicized through federal funding. The first of such Amnesties scheduled for 01 Nov 78 through 30 Nov 78, wherein the Public may forfeit to the Police Function any Firearms for disposal by the Crown All personnel have been aware of the foregoing operations. It will be announced that NO CHARGES WILL BE LAID AGAINST A PERSON WHO FORFEITS A FIREAM, THE POSSESSION OF WHICH EXCEPT FOR THE AMNESTY WOULD CONSTITUE AN OFFENCE, such as a Prohibited, Unregistered Restricted or altered or defaced serial numbered weapon. The identification and particulars of all persons forfeiting firearms or dangerous substances are to be obtained , and as much history as possible relevant to the firearm or substance obtained and documented. Records are to be kept. All forfeited firearms are to be thoroughly scrutinized through laboratory methods and available records to determine if the Firearm: i) was used in the commission of a crime. ii) Was obtained through the commission of a crime. .... and if it is so determined, and investigation pursued to the point of arrest and prosecution if possible. In the event criminal firearms is located, all persons connected with its possession and or use shall be noted, for the purpose of application for prohibition order(s) and warrants(s) to Enter a Dwelling, Search for and Seize Firearms, in regards to the involved parties. All identities and particulars recorded under Amnesty are to be processed through available Intelligence Systems to determine if that person forfeiting the firearm(s): i) has a criminal record ii) is socially unstable iii) has any other history or background . Which would be cause for application to obtain an Order for Prohibition and Warrants to enter a Dwelling, Search for and seize Firearms, and that procedure should be implemented forthwith. On the strength of Amnesty those persons for whom there would be cause to proceed against had there been no Amnesty, cannot be charged directly. However, there is still cause to obtain an application for an order of prohibition, and Warrants to Enter a Dwelling, Search for and Seize Firearms which that person might possess as it was duly demonstrated by the act of forfeiture of a firearm or dangerous substance for which the individual might have been charged in regards to had the Amnesty not been in force, that individual was careless and irresponsible in having such in possession prior to the Amnesty. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 16:19:29 -0400 From: "ed machel" Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V13 #254 - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 10:23 AM Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V13 #254 > If not killing baby seals would cause a depletion of fish, how did the > stocks get so big that the Portuguese said you could almost walk on the > water. > > It does not make sense. > > The only thing that depletes the fish stock is MAN. you know it and I > too. The well only holds so much water. > > Rae Baker > Rae I must say you MAY have point? However you seem to contradict yourself on the main point. That is; the abundance of fish(cod)....Its obvious that there were so MANY Cod that whatever the seals ate made little difference ..... as they were in abundance for many years untiil the foriegn trawlers decimated them (with Kanadian government approval.)In the 19th and 20th centuries. Its only now when the Cod stocks are so depleted(by man or whatever means ) that the cod will suffer extinction because their numbers do NOT even come close to what they were 300+ years ago. ed/on > {Mod Note: Actually, man has also depleted the stock of seal preditors to > a point where their population is no longer controlled. Although man is > still the culprit in the end, it will get worse if he does not try to > mitigate the problems he has caused. BUZ] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 13:32:31 -0700 From: "Todd Birch" Subject: re: COIN Manual I didn't suggest our role in Afghanistan will be changing - Harper did. The influx of US troops will free up more Canadians for other roles. I did mention that the Legion article talked about liaison with the Brits and Aussies, who are also revamping their COIN manual. It mentions that NATO is similarly working on their's as well. I'm aware of the "translation" problem you mentioned. When I was serving, we were already on our 4th re-write of the French/English military dictionary. The Francophones simply refused to say what the book said as being silly. I suspect that any COIN manual will go through similar teething problems. I did mention that those eight points were all :"cliches". And yes, no two insurgencies are alike, but they all show that conventional army thinking and methods do not apply to COIN operations where the insurgents don't have manuals to follow. The support of the people hinges on tangible evidence that the Afghan gov't can provide lasting security and stability. How this can be achieved along with the elimination of corruption is beyond the scope of a military operation as long as the Taliban are active as a destabilizing force. TB "It has nothing to do with power - it's all about control" ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V13 #257 *********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@scorpion.bogend.ca Moderator's email: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca List owner: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca FAQ list: http://www.canfirearms/Skeeter/Faq/cfd-faq1.html Web Site: http://www.canfirearms.ca CFDigest Archives: http://www.canfirearms.ca/archives To unsubscribe from _all_ the lists, put the next four lines in a message and mailto:majordomo@scorpion.bogend.ca unsubscribe cdn-firearms-digest unsubscribe cdn-firearms-chat unsubscribe cdn-firearms end (To subscribe, use "subscribe" instead of "unsubscribe".)