Cdn-Firearms Digest Tuesday, November 10 2009 Volume 13 : Number 542 In this issue: Ottawa Citizen - Letter - MPs disregard safety of rural Canadians Re: RCMP - Enhanced Screening Internet Unit Our poelease and gov't are looking out for us Hero or villain? RE: Wpg FreeP: LONG-GUN REGISTRY ONE STEP CLOSER TO RE: Army killer advocated beheading in lecture to doctors Re: Farmers & Hunters Feeding the Hungry G&M - City slickers and the legend of Canada as an urban nation ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:40:18 -0800 (PST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Ottawa Citizen - Letter - MPs disregard safety of rural Canadians http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/letters/disregard+safety+rural+Canadians/2200939/story.html MPs disregard safety of rural Canadians By Alan Drummond, The Ottawa Citizen November 9, 2009 Re: MPs slap bull's-eye on gun registry, Nov. 5. As a small-town doctor and coroner in rural Ontario, I am saddened by the decision of a majority of MPs to support a bill which would repeal the long gun registry. My own personal experience with gun-related death has mirrored the national statistics. Most are suicides, the great majority have involved long guns and, of course, they live in rural environments. I have never seen a death with a handgun and have never seen a death committed as a criminal act, with one notable exception of a murder as a result of domestic violence. Typically, I am called to a rural property or farm, where some headless corpse lies with blood and brains bathing the hunting rifle or shotgun that lies by the motionless body. As if this image wasn't soul-wrenching enough, I then have to deal with the anguished cries and the shattered lives of the loved ones of the deceased huddled in the family kitchen. I have to work to suppress these images or I couldn't carry on with my work. Those who have voted to repeal the long gun registry clearly have a sterilized view of gun-related deaths. How else to explain their callous disregard for the health and safety of rural Canadians? Alan Drummond, Perth Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:48:46 -0800 (PST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: RCMP - Enhanced Screening Internet Unit - --- On Mon, 11/9/09, Lee Jasper wrote: > The secondary role involves open-source Internet searches, > including a variety of known websites, blogs and social networking > sites. A significant trend with firearms crime and violence is > pre-event advertisement by individuals via the Internet. I wonder how much *this* is costing us... Yours in TYRANNY! Bruce ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:26:42 -0500 From: Lee Jasper Subject: Our poelease and gov't are looking out for us Alan commented: > I don't understand why they would use a Taser on someone this age, 82, > 68, and so on. > > Do they think that the Taser is really non-lethal in all cases, even with > old guys??? Is this what they are taught in the RCMP??? [They buy all the crap that Taser International tells them - without question]. My action in the next plebiscite may well be affected by the degree to which the bombastic Van Loan (he's becoming as obnoxious than even John Baird who told Toronto, its 5 Mil citizens and how many seats, to fuddle duddle) 'stands-up' for the citizens of Canada - and tells the cops to 'THINK' before they zap citizens. I find it very ironic that just when Harps and company need a little co-operation from the fuzz with C-391 - that the cops are biting their biggest booster in the arse. A cop on every corner, iron-clad pay packets, more fringe benefits than you can shake a stick at; talk about a double-cross for Steve who thought he had 'em in his back pocket. Did I forget to mention Jim Flaherty's broken income trust promise? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:37:45 -0500 From: Lee Jasper Subject: Hero or villain? Thanks to Bruce for posting Professor Young's article. Professor Young does a decent job of explaining the 'legal dance' one might expect to face if they decide to undertake any form of 'citizens arrest'. While a direct threat to one's security of the person will likely be treated with some sympathy, actions to detain in after-the-fact incidents involving property items will be examined 'very' closely - and often result in dire reverse consequences. I have a close contact who went through one of these incidents and it cost he and another person 'major' coin and many months of severe anxiety before they 'got-off' with a severe tongue lashing and slap on the wrist - not to speak of loss of arms and a five-year prohibition on any future firearm ownership. As Young states [while in the heat of the moment, under a state of excitation with the testosterone cranked high]: > to avoid becoming a criminal for chasing a criminal the > individual needs to know whether a crime is classified as indictable or > summary conviction (i.e. in the old parlance, felony or misdemeanour), > and the power to arrest does not extend to crimes committed in the past > week, or even the past hour, as the private citizen must catch the > criminal in flagrante delicto. I have been told that the courts might decide to process incidents like Chen and Currie primarily to 'inform and educate' the citizenry as to what behaviour is tolerable. The Toronto Chen case and the recent Brian Knight incident in Alberta where the property owner under no personal threat chased the thief driving the owner's stolen ATV with his pick-up, demonstrates that it can be awfully darned pricey 'education' if you're the guinea pig being held up as a public example of what is, and is not, permissible. See: A Knight with balls? The media has jumped on this farmer’s bandwagon Published April 16, 2009 by Ira Wells in Viewpoint > http://www.ffwdweekly.com/article/news-views/viewpoint/a-knight-with-balls-3631/ A legal defence fund has been set up in trust by his friend Brian Currie, and donations can be made at the ATB. > http://www.brianknightlegalfund.com/ - ----- > http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/718330 > > When citizens act like police > > Alan Young Law professor at Osgoode Hall Law School > Published On Fri Oct 30 2009 The following is taken from Young's article. > I don't know whether David Chen is a hero or villain. Presumably this > question will be directly or indirectly addressed in his upcoming trial. > > David Chen has discovered that criminal justice has become a spectator > sport. Members of the public are only allowed to watch from the > sidelines. > In exercising a citizen's power of arrest to apprehend a thief, the > shopkeeper has now found himself in more legal hot water than the thief > himself. In exchange for handing over the shoplifter, Chen now faces > charges of assault, forcible confinement, carrying a concealed weapon and > kidnapping. > > Is Chen a hero or a villain? The same question polarized New Yorkers in > the 1980s when Bernard Goetz was charged with attempted murder for taking > the drastic pre-emptive step of shooting a group of young black men whom > Goetz reasonably believed were about to mug him on the subway. The Goetz > saga dragged on for years with no true resolution of the debate. > > the origins of policing are found in the ancient practice of "hue > and cry" in which all members of the community were legally obligated to > assist in the apprehension of criminals. As the Supreme Court of Canada > said in 2003: "The development of modern police forces brought a transfer > of law enforcement activities from private citizens to peace officers > We worried that the police might become a standing > army and that a corps of public prosecutors would terrorize the > vulnerable > and protect those in power. To offset these concerns, our law retained > some > residual power and authority for citizens to take the law into their own > hands. Since its inception in 1892, the Criminal Code has authorized both > a citizen's power of arrest and the power to initiate criminal > proceedings. > Like the dismissal of the Guardian Angels, the laying of criminal charges > against David Chen is a reminder that even though our law still allows > Canadians to exercise some law enforcement and prosecutorial duties, this > involvement will often receive a chilly reception. > The reluctance of public officials to embrace private law enforcement is > the least of the problems facing the individual bent on self-help. In > order to stay within the law, the individual must stickhandle within the > significant restrictions placed upon the citizen's power of arrest under > s.494 of the Criminal Code. > Anyone can exercise a power of arrest if you "find" someone committing an > indictable offence, or if you have reasonable grounds to believe someone > has committed an indictable or summary conviction offence and this person > is being "freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest > the person." > A store owner can arrest someone who is committing an indictable or > summary conviction offence in relation to the owner's property, but only > if the owner, or an agent of the owner, "finds" the person committing the > offence. So to avoid becoming a criminal for chasing a criminal the > individual needs to know whether a crime is classified as indictable or > summary conviction (i.e. in the old parlance, felony or misdemeanour), > and the power to arrest does not extend to crimes committed in the past > week, or even the past hour, as the private citizen must catch the > criminal > in flagrante delicto. > > Even if an individual can stickhandle within these constraints, the > citizen's power of arrest seems a bit foolish in modern times. In > previous > centuries, when exercising the power of arrest, the individual could let > out the "hue and cry" and all able-bodied adults within earshot were > legally obligated to assist. > The citizen's power of arrest loses some of its romantic nobility in a > culture overrun with guns. > However, his story serves to remind us that the police do not have > exclusive control over law enforcement and, in fact, it is often > forgotten that private security personnel outnumber public police by a > two-to-one ratio. > Although the exercise of the citizen's power of arrest is a risky > endeavour, this risk remains a legal option because when we placed our > trust in professional police the law never extinguished the powers given > to members of the public to defend their property and their communities > as they see fit. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 05:09:00 +0000 From: Trigger Mortis Subject: RE: Wpg FreeP: LONG-GUN REGISTRY ONE STEP CLOSER TO "Yorkton-Melville MP Garry Breitkreuz, who has worked tirelessly to eliminate the registry. Breitkreuz said: "This is a great day for Parliament because it shows that Canadians have a say in the affairs of their country. The voices of hunters, farmers and sport shooters were heard loud and clear in the House of Commons." Yeah, well, call me a cynic, but when it becomes law, I'll believe it. The members who voted for the dismantling of the registry know that the vote did not remove the registry. It's just another straw vote to test the wind. Alan Harper alan__harper@hotmail.com SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM ************************* > Subject: Wpg Free Press Column: LONG-GUN REGISTRY ONE STEP CLOSER TO > From: dhyoung@shaw.ca > Date: > To: pmorlock@shimano.com > > FORWARDED WITH PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR > > Winnipeg Free Press - Nov 7/09 > LONG-GUN REGISTRY ONE STEP CLOSER TO ELIMINATION > By Robert D. Sopuck sopuckrd@xplornet.com > ... > She paid special tribute to her colleague, Yorkton-Melville MP Garry > Breitkreuz, who has worked tirelessly to eliminate the registry. > Breitkreuz said: "This is a great day for Parliament because it shows > that Canadians have a say in the affairs of their country. The voices > of hunters, farmers and sport shooters were heard loud and clear in > the House of Commons." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 05:18:50 +0000 From: Trigger Mortis Subject: RE: Army killer advocated beheading in lecture to doctors This is forwarded from an American friend: HE DID IT BECAUSE HE IS MUSLIM: He did it because he's Muslim. The president won't say it, the press won't say it, the generals won't say it -- yet we all know it. He did it because he's Muslim. And the politically correct ignoring of that fact disrespects his victims and makes a mockery of all who are in danger today because of militant Islam. No, we are not at war with Islam, but Islam most assuredly is at war with us. It has been specifically since 1983 and generally since 610. And yet the president raised in Islam stood up Friday and warned the nation not to "jump to conclusions." A man named Nidal Malik Hasan, who had begun the day dressed like the sheik of Araby, who had written and said that suicide bombers are heroes, who shouted Muslim slogans as he opened fire, ended up killing 13 innocent Americans -- and the condescended-in-chief told us not to jump to conclusions. Just yesterday the Army's top general, Gen. George Casey, said, "It's way too soon to be drawing any conclusions about what happened or what his motivations were." Well, maybe that's true for political generals with their lips on the president's arse, but for the rest of us the issue seems pretty clear. He did it because he is Muslim. And while, no, not all Muslims are our enemy, it is an undeniable fact that tens of millions of them are. Included in that number is Nidal Malik Hasan, a natural-born American who got a free college education and medical degree courtesy of the American taxpayer and the American Army. And yet, before the blood was mopped out of the processing center at Fort Hood, an across-the-government effort to cover for this guy was underway. Within two hours the FBI was telling reporters that the murders were not terrorism. CNN's Pentagon reporter suggested that the military's anti- stress programs were flawed. The White House said the motive was unknown and the generals started defending Muslim soldiers. Which merely adds insult to injury. A Muslim guy, shouting in Arabic about Allah, kills more than a dozen Americans and the generals depict American soldiers as shallow cads expected to start lynching Muslims at any moment. He did it to us and somehow we're the bad guys. Truth be told, Muslim American soldiers killing non-Muslim American soldiers actually have a body count that's pretty significant. At the same time, there is no record of any violence going back the other way. And yet General Casey hit the TV circuit yesterday fearing Thursday's carnage would "cause a backlash against our Muslim soldiers." I've asked our Army leaders to be on the lookout for that. It would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty. "What happened at Fort Hood is a tragedy, and I believe it would be a greater tragedy if diversity became a casualty." Let's run that through the bull-crap detector. He said "diversity" becoming "a casualty" would be "a greater tragedy" than "what happened at Fort Hood." That must be very comforting to the 13 families making funeral arrangements. Hurt Muslim feelings is "a greater casualty" than dead American soldiers. That comes as no surprise to anyone who has seen the rules of engagement our combat troops are forced to operate under. Let's hear from one last lying moron. Sen. Lindsey Graham, also primping for the Sunday TV shows, said of the Fort Hood gunman, "This is just about him. It's certainly not about his religion, Islam." No honest person can say those words, and no patriotic person can silently suffer them. He did it because he is Muslim. He repeatedly and angrily denounced the war because it killed Muslims. He wrote and argued that a Muslim suicide bomber who killed American troops was the moral equivalent of a Marine who throws himself on a grenade to save his buddies. He said that by killing American troops a Muslim was performing a heroic service by saving the lives of the Muslims those American troops might one day kill. That's what a major in the United States Army wrote. And then he did it. He killed American troops who were going into a war zone where they would face Muslims. He gunned down men and women, soldiers and civilians, and he was praising Allah as he did it. And the president of the United States isn't honest enough to recognize what that means. Rather, he and the entire power structure of the nation and media want to play a charade that spits on the broken bodies of Thursday's attack. Instead of candor, we got scolding and blame. The media repeated nonsense about the man being teased for his religious beliefs, it spoke about an Army that puts too much stress on people, and we all got reminded that the people in charge think we're a bunch of savages. But we are not the ones who kill people because of their religion. That evil is done every day, for years on end, by Muslims. Muslims like Nidal Malik Hasan. Be honest enough to speak the truth. He did it because he is Muslim. - - by Bob Lonsberry (c) 2009 Alan Harper alan__harper@hotmail.com SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM ************************* > Subject: Army killer advocated beheading in lecture to doctors > From: dhyoung@shaw.ca > > CALGARY HERALD - NOVEMBER 9, 2009 > Army killer advocated beheading in lecture to doctors BY NICK ALLEN > http://www.calgaryherald.com/life/Army+killer+advocated+beheading+lecture+doctors/2200457/story.html > > Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the gunman who killed 13 at the Fort Hood > military base in Texas, once gave a lecture to other doctors in which > he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured > down their throats. He also told colleagues at America's leading > military hospital that non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell > who should be set on fire. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:00:24 -0500 From: Bill Subject: Re: Farmers & Hunters Feeding the Hungry Your absolutely right!! For Urban Ontario anyway.. I think the general reaction would be Ewwwww wild meat...Yukkkk! Why kill poor defenceless animals? Why not just buy the meat they make in supermarkets, where no animals were harmed? Bill ;=) > Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:53:57 -0500 > From: Lee Jasper > Subject: Re: Farmers & Hunters Feeding the Hungry > > Todd commented on: > >> re: Farmers & Hunters Feeding the Hungry >> >> I'm all for such a program starting up in BC! > >> www.fhfhcanada.org > >> Welcome to FHFH CANADA! >> >> Farmers and Hunters Feeding the Hungry (FHFH) is an outreach ministry >> of God's people transforming a renewable God-given resource into food >> for the hungry. >> > I note that FHFH Canada is NB based. > > It is appealing for donations of game AND cash. > > Last I heard Ontario hunters would find the same experience as Todd; any > homeless shelter, home for unwed mothers or nursing home, etc. can't > prepare and serve anything but gov't inspected meat. > > Heck, many abattoirs won't even touch wild game these days because they > have to do a super scrub-job of all their equipment after the various > wild game seasons. > > Would you want your loved one's eating meat with dubious lineage? > > Frankly, I'd be verrrrrrrrrry careful of opening my wallet for this org. > Check with your provincial health org about donations of wild game. > > There are more useful causes with 'known' benefactors for your money - > within our own fraternity. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 21:36:16 -0800 (PST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: G&M - City slickers and the legend of Canada as an urban nation http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/city-slickers-and-the-legend-of-canada-as-an-urban-nation/article1356147/ City slickers and the legend of Canada as an urban nation Roy MacGregor Published on Monday, Nov. 09, 2009 12:00AM EST Last updated on Monday, Nov. 09, 2009 8:07AM EST It is the ultimate urban myth. And this newspaper is as guilty as any when it comes to spreading that myth. But there it was again late last week, published as if fact: "Eighty per cent of us live in cities." It is a claim that - in various forms - appears regularly in newspapers and in broadcast commentary across the country, an absurdity as hard to kill as the notion that porcupines shoot quills or that astronaut Neil Armstrong took his legendary "one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" in Sudbury. It is not even remotely true that four out of five Canadians live in what any of us would actually consider a "city," yet so strong is the belief in this that it has marginalized even more so those who consider themselves "rural." If they amount to only one in five, they can be virtually dismissed so far as national debate on public policy goes. This particular reference was to last week's vote in the House of Commons to approve in principle a private member's bill to shut down the controversial long-gun registry. But that is hardly the only time the bogus "80 per cent of us live in cities" comes up and has an innuendo effect that is usually unfair. If "rural" Canadians - the so-called one in five who live in the boonies - are against gun control, then they must be knuckle-dragging rednecks who like to ride around with their .303s hanging in the back window of the pickup. If they are against, say, wind turbines, then they must be a bunch of NIMBY reactionaries who think a carbon footprint isn't worth leaving unless you stomp your feet. If they are against the closing down of local television outlets and signals they might pick up, then they are simply techno-dinosaurs who think TV hockey is a game played in driving snowstorms with 10 men a side. This idea that 80 per cent of Canadians live in cities - the other 20 per cent being yokels - comes courtesy of Statistics Canada and a non-thinking media. StatsCan, which for reasons even many of its employees puzzle over, considers an "urban" centre a defined area with 1,000 or more population. There`s a stat to help refute Windy Wendy. That has the effect of deeming little places like Arnold's Cove, Nfld., and Barry's Bay, Ont., "urban." The media, then, substitutes "city" for "urban" (why not?) and we end up with this continuing misread of the country. "I've heckled and berated Statistics Canada on this," says Tony Clement, the member for "rural" Parry Sound-Muskoka and one who voted for last week's bill. "They don't like to change their definitions because it makes it difficult to make comparisons with past statistics. But this has a big impact on our public-policy debate when all urban areas are based on some 1903 definition." Actually, it's worse than that. Though StatsCan often tweaks the density requirements, the notion of 1,000 people being an "urban" centre goes all the way back to Confederation - when it was fair to say a town of 1,000 people was substantial. If the cutoff were 100,000, then Canada would be considered roughly half urban and half rural. The population is clearly more in cities, and it can be fairly argued that city voters get shortchanged when it comes to the value of their vote, but that is another point, not this one. This one is merely that a wrong-headed "fact" - four out of five Canadians are city dwellers - has the effect of stereotyping, usually unfairly, those who do not live in large centres. Keith Martin is the member of Parliament for Esquimalt - Juan de Fuca, as well as a Liberal. He is such a "redneck" that this spring he introduced his own private member's bill in the House of Commons to decriminalize simple possession of marijuana. He is also a physician and has a long track record of humanitarian work in the Third World. Yet he, too, voted for the bill that suspended the long-gun registry. "I had one woman say to me, 'You should be ashamed of yourself - you're a physician!'" says Martin. "Well, I've seen people shot. I've been helpless to save them. I have a vested interested in making sure people don't get shot and killed by guns. "I know this is one of those issues where the attitude is 'If you're not with us, you're against us' and the presumption is that I'm against any gun control. Well, that just isn't so. I voted to send it to committee to see if there might be more effective ways of spending this money." Martin, like Clement, thinks the simple-minded media interpretation of urban/rural needs to be addressed. "It's an artificial divide," he says, "and it preys on old mythologies of people in rural areas being hewers of wood and drawers of water, whereas 'urban' people are more sophisticated and higher educated. "Those stereotypes are long gone. But the problem in Canada is that we focus more on the things that divide us than those things that bring us together." Is anyone at Statistics Canada listening? ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V13 #542 *********************************** 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".)