Cdn-Firearms Digest Saturday, September 18 2010 Volume 14 : Number 073 In this issue: Veteran psychiatrist calls liberals mentally ill Column: Gun registry long on philosophy, short on practicality Re: What Breitkreuz said . . . [Renamed: What's on CPIC] letter to Globe and Mail (just sent) re: danger of firearms Ottawa Citizen - Editorial - Born in sin, but worth keeping Saskatoon Police Investigation deliberately flawed; ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, September 18, 2010 9:21 am From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: Veteran psychiatrist calls liberals mentally ill NOTE: Just in case you missed this one. Below is a good four-point test to determine if your government is liberal or conservative. - -------------------------- WorldNetDaily Exclusive - Sunday, August 15, 2010 Veteran psychiatrist calls liberals mentally ill Publishes extensive study on 'Psychological Causes of Political Madness' http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=56494 WASHINGTON - Just when liberals thought it was safe to start identifying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran psychiatrist is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder. WASHINGTON - - Just when liberals thought it was safe to start identifying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran psychiatrist is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder. "Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave." While political activists on the other side of the spectrum have made similar observations, Rossiter boasts professional credentials and a life virtually free of activism and links to "the vast right-wing conspiracy." For more than 35 years he has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago. Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by both Barack Obama and his Democratic primary opponent Hillary Clinton can only be understood as a psychological disorder. "A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity - as liberals do," he says. "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population - as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state - as liberals do." Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by: - - creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization; - - satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation; - - augmenting primitive feelings of envy; - - rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government. "The roots of liberalism - and its associated madness - can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious." ------------------------------ Date: Sat, September 18, 2010 10:00 am From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: Column: Gun registry long on philosophy, short on practicality NORTHERNLIFE.CA - Sep 15, 2010 Gun registry long on philosophy, short on practicality By: Guest Columnist Tom Fortin http://www.northernlife.ca/news/columns/guests/Fortin160910.aspx By nature, I am not a political person. However, there have been many changes in our government policies over the past several years that are starting to make me think I should spend a little less time in my canoe. This Monday, while wiping the sleep out of my eyes and enjoying a cup of java, I noticed on (Sudbury MP) Glenn Thibeault's website that he had decided not to stand to have the gun registry scrapped in a vote later this September. "I made up my mind based on what I was hearing from folks like Chief Elsner (Sudbury's Police Chief )," Thibeault stated in a news release. I think I will start by letting former Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino express what I believe, as he stated in a press release in 2003: "We have an ongoing gun crisis, including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered, although we believe that more than half of them were smuggled into Canada from the United States. The firearms registry is long on philosophy and short on practical results considering the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives." The Canadian Chiefs of Police constantly state the number of times the registry is accessed as justification for its existence. As of June 2010, the database was reportedly accessed 14,012 times per day. Only 530 (3.7 per cent) of those "hits" are specific to firearms registration (licence number, serial number and certificate number). The remaining 13,482 (96.3 per cent) are automatically generated every time an address is checked or a licence plate is verified. (Yes, when you get pulled over for speeding, your gun status is checked.) The specific registry hits are not limited to use by police officers and also include legal sales of firearms. Every time a firearm is legally purchased, three hits are generated on the database - one for the buyer, one for the seller, and one for the firearm. This alone, easily explains the 530 real "hits" per day. There simply is no reliable information to suggest how many times per day police officers intentionally access the firearms registry. Statistics Canada states that, in 2006, there were 605 homicides in Canada. Long guns accounted for the following numbers of deaths: 36 victims were killed by a rifle/shotgun, 24 by a sawed-off rifle/shotgun ( obviously not registered) and 22 by another or unknown type of firearm. Of the 605 deaths, 210 were the result of stabbings. Isn't that interesting? Perhaps we should start a "Long Knife Registry," requiring all knives over eight inches in length to be registered. Knife owners would then be required to take knife safety courses and carry a valid knife possession certificate. This would generate plenty of extra cash for further government bureaucracy and intrusion into our privacy. Our privacy does matter. Shouldn't a law-abiding gun owner be treated the same as any law-abiding non-gun owner if/when police interact with them? Shouldn't the police simply have an awareness that there are long guns in Canada and treat all situations accordingly? Think about this for a moment. If a police officer is attending a call and a search of the registry shows no registered long guns at the residence, is he not at greater risk by letting down his guard - even if only slightly? Could there not be unregistered long guns present? If the occupants are really dangerous criminals, any guns they may have would not likely be registered. It seems to me the registry endangers our police officers rather than protect them. The Long Gun Registry was originally forecast to have a net cost of $2 million, but ended up costing more than $ 1 billion to implement and costs $44.3 million per year to administer. Could all this money have been used for other crime reduction programs, such as gun safety education or other social programs? The government often uses the figure of $40,000 of spending for each job created. Using that logic, about 1,100 people, mostly RCMP, owe their living to the gun registry. Should anyone be surprised that they are the biggest supporters of the registry? Look, the facts are that if the registry is scrapped, gun owners would still be required to take mandatory safety courses, hold a valid possession and acquisition licence certificate and transport, use and store firearms in a safe manner. Things would be much like they are now, except that there would not be a central registry draining millions of our taxpayer dollars and doing nothing for the safety of us or police officers. Further, the fees from these activities would still generate income and, without the central registry, result in the gun safety program actually producing a surplus of funds. It is disheartening to see the general public act so complacent as they incrementally give up their rights and freedoms each time the government says "it's for your safety" when it comes to public policy. We don't need more protection from our government. Rather, we need protection from more government. Oh well, that's my two cents - now where is that paddle? Tom Fortin is the director of a local electronics manufacturing company. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 10:26:33 -0400 From: Lee Jasper Subject: Re: What Breitkreuz said . . . [Renamed: What's on CPIC] This has become stale but here's my dialogue with 10X about what's on CPIC: Comment to my post on the CFD: Jerrold said: > You are right, a criminal conviction is registered with CPIC - > eventually. The police do this on confirmation of conviction by the > courts. This can take several months. Sure it could, , , but I understand it occurs promptly in most instances. That very day is not uncommon from what I'm told. And can't court staff also input such info upon conviction? If there's a problem with keeping CPIC up to date some folks want to add to the dilemma by treating 'another duplicate' registry for purely 'political' purposes. > As for miscreants on probation or parole. They report to probation > officers who are not part of the police. Correct,,, but any of the P/PO folk I 'worked cases with' were pretty tight with the ninjas. Some of these folk are former broken-down cops. > Missed meetings and delayed meetings may or may not be reported to > police by the proabation and parole officers. In my experience in working cases in the real world, a lot depended on how much of a bad-ass the probationer/parolee was. If s/he was a real jerkface they would be reported and back in the lockup pretty quick. Part of rehab programs is to get these folk to be punctual and to meet their commitments. I recall one year shredding some half-dozen files of clients who were no longer in circulation - they'd been returned to custody. > Address changes may or may not be reported to the probation or > parole officer. Read above. You must realize the 'new' P/POs and police are all super dweebs, not like us old farts. they're at their iPods, Blackberries and Notebooks like ants, compulsively checking incoming messages and updating files and databases. Any significant contact with a 'known' gets logged in a case file, FIP or local police databases. (Partly to protect themselves against complaints). Do you realize many cops spend about 3-hours of a 12-hour shift tapping away on their 'puters, in-car and desk-top. There's far more info filed and stored these days. Some of these folk can keyboard like a steno. Take away stops at Timmies, lunch and mid-shift breaks and you only get 7 1/2 to 8-hours of real police work out of these folk per day. They work their 3-twelves and they're off for 4-days. I see a couple of these dudes on the golf course, beautiful ball strikers; they play more golf than I do, and I'm retired. You get too aggressive and hostile during a traffic stop - and you might very well be checked out by your CFO or local FO at a later date. > Probation and parole officers are not members of the police service > in Alberta. They are either provincial or federal government > employees. And in Alberta ALL those on probation are required to > report to a probation officer. > > Once their sentence is finished they are no longer required to report > to parole and probation officers. They have paid their debt to > society. Correct, but for many of the serious repeat offenders there may be as much as ten years of follow-up, even life-time supervision orders exist. And you're correct, they've paid their 'debt' but it will follow them as they apply for jobs, try to travel to the U.S., try to get bonded, etc. (Let's not get into pardons). > The point you, and Mr. Brietkreuz (and every other politician misses) > is that if a person is too dangerous to be trusted with possession of > a gun, then they are too dangerous to be trusted with any thing to be > free in pubilc. I'm not a politician and I answer to my own conscience, not a cockamamie caucus or a bunch of rubes in a PMO that never worked in the real world. What you have written is preposterous. There are hundreds of thousands of folks walking around out there who are one Valium away from going postal. We realize they should be under supervised care in behavioral treatment programs in the community but those programs are underfunded like many other needed services. Too much money is being spent on bulking up police services to keep the law and order social conservatives in the CPC happy. Yep, with these folk the 'control' mechanisms keep growing and growing. And they want a throw away the key, American styled correctional system which has proven to be dysfunctional and is bankrupting the fed and state gov't's. The Yanks have learned the hard-way, and Harper is adopting their mentality. The guys an anachronism. If you can find some legitimate citations to disprove this, send them my way. And Harper who promised to operate gov't based on facts, not rhetoric, wants to imitate this. What's the percentage of offenders serving time with serious mental health issues? When they serve their time - and Harper's 'added time' won't fix their problems, they'll return to the streets with the same sociopathy they entered prison. (Like in the U.S.). Have you any idea how the 'sentence before you build more cells' in Canada will add to the problems of trying to rehab people? (Harper and Toews didn't consider it). The folk who keep parroting 'spend the cash wasted on the long gun registry on mental health issues' for the Garbi's of the world - should apply the same logic to our correctional system. Yipper, ole Harps and Toews are also logicians, statisticians and criminologists. P.S. The same folk who complain about whatever is spent on the long gun registry have no problem with Harper blowing $265 Mil on the failed tobacco buy-out, $90 Mil on silly projects in Steamboat Tony's Muskoka riding, etc. I'm no fan of the registry, but I'd argue that whatever benefits might accrue, exceed the return on the above. P.P.S. Some day we must have a discussion comparing Canada's Economic Action Plan with Adscam. - ---- See: 1st U.S. Prison Population Drop Since 1972 Study by Pew Center Finds Less Inmates Across Country, Suggests Beginning of Cost-Cutting Trend > http://aim.search.aol.com/aol/search?s_it=nscpsearch&q=U.S.+prison+population - --- Sub-Standard Treatment of Mentally Ill Inmates is Criminal: Experts Federal prisons ill-equipped to manage growing incarceration of mentally ill Canadians > http://www.cmha.ca/bins/content_page.asp?cid=6-20-21-965-773 OTTAWA, Nov. 4 /CNW Telbec/ - The treatment and support of inmates who are mentally ill in Canadian prisons is sub-standard, and sometimes almost non- existent, experts say. It is estimated that up to 20 per cent of inmates have a mental illness that requires treatment. Of these, seven to nine per cent have a serious mental illness such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression. "If these inmates do not receive hospital-standard psychiatric care, their chances of rehabilitation are extremely low and their risk of re-offending remains high," - - Survey: Most inmates show mental symptoms Fewer than one-third with problems treated, Justice Department says > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14707120/ WASHINGTON — More than half of America's prison and jail inmates have symptoms of a mental health problem, the Justice Department estimated Wednesday. But fewer than one-third of those with problems are getting treatment behind bars. - ----- Nuff said. - - - - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:03:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Rob Sciuk Subject: letter to Globe and Mail (just sent) ... too close to private life (fwd) Dear Sir/Madame, I am saddened at Albina Guarnieri's diagnosis, and wish her the best in dealing with her affliction. I was pleased that Ms. Taber chose to illuminate the highlights of an impressive career, but there was a low point, albeit through no fault of Madame Guarnieri, which was glossed over. Faced with a massive tide of non-compliance which continues to haunt the Liberal's flagship "Canadian Firearms Act" (the Registry), the Chretien Cabinet charged Ms. Guarnieri with performing an analysis of reasons for the high rate of non-compliance amoung responsible firearm owners, and a possible streamlining which would make the laws more palatable to those who oppose it, and even more effective with regard to the public safety. By all accounts, Ms. Guarnieri did a stellar job, reviewing regulations and interviewing those who understood the implications in detail. When her report was tabled in the Cabinet, it was declared a cabinet secret, and thus hidden from the eyes of Canadians for 50 years. Apparently, her diligence and good faith were at odds with the Liberal policies of the day, as I'm sure that nothing Ms. Guarnieri discovered could have possibly so jeopardized the national safety as to warrant a cabinet secrecy designation. Given the debate currently underway, I believe that the Guarnieri report would be very interesting reading, for both sides of the issue. Sincerely, Robert S. Sciuk ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 08:54:48 -0700 From: "Todd Birch" Subject: re: danger of firearms Several years ago I decided to top up my term insurance at a favourable rate. This necessitated an 'in home' interview and medical exam by an RN. I was asked if I engaged in any high risk sports - parachuting, downhill skiing, para-sailing, hang gliding, etc. I said no, but did do x-country skiing, ocean kayaking, hiking, biking and a lot of hunting and shooting. None of these were considered to be 'high risk' activities. Some were regarded as beneficial lifestyle choices. If anyone knows what a 'high risk activity' is, it's the insurance underwriters. What do they know that the anti-gunners don't know? In other words, the rhetoric and ranting of the anti-gunnners is based on emotion and devoid of logic, reason and factual data. But - you already knew that. It stands to reason that if guns were so inherently dangerous, then the shooting ranges across the country would be littered with bodies and the homes of gun owners would statistically be among the most dangerous places in Canada. A factual study of data could probably establish this in short order. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 09:42:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Ottawa Citizen - Editorial - Born in sin, but worth keeping http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Born+worth+keeping/3544268/story.html Born in sin, but worth keeping The Ottawa Citizen September 18, 2010 6:11 AM Take away the years of hyperbole, the partisan posturing and the costly mistakes. Take away the strong emotions, the rural-urban resentment, the left vs. right identity politics. Canada is left with a simple, practical question: Is the price of maintaining the long-gun registry one that taxpayers should pay? We believe the answer is a qualified yes, and it looks like a slim majority of members of Parliament might agree. The long-gun registry was conceived in sin, to put it mildly. Auditor General Sheila Fraser called it "the largest cost overrun we've ever seen in this office" in 2002. All the initial estimates were blown out of the water and just getting reliable information on the set-up costs was a challenge. And, as Fraser noted, "Parliament was kept in the dark." This editorial board called the registry "a spectacular display of incompetence and incoherence" back in 2003, and the description was apt. Gun-owners had to navigate a byzantine bureaucracy. Worse, the Liberals brought it in without providing any clear, evidence-based rationale. It was policy-making for political ends. Cynicism is always a part of democratic politics, but this was cynicism that manipulated the tragic stories of victims of crime to sway voters. That's disgusting. There was never any reason to believe that a long-gun registry would prevent some deeply troubled person from entering a public place and shooting innocent people, as happened at Montreal's Ecole Polytechnique in 1989. It was never going to stop "gangstas" from shooting at each other in the streets of Toronto. However, as a recent RCMP evaluation pointed out, the registry provides police with information before they go into a potentially dangerous situation. It helps frontline health workers plan for the safety of emergency-room patients. It helps to quickly trace weapons that are stolen, trafficked or used in crimes -- and yes, some long guns are used in crimes. In fact, when you include suicides and accidents, long guns account for most firearms-related deaths in Canada. Contrary to Liberal rhetoric, the gun registry probably doesn't save many lives, although it's conceivable that it could. It does, though, provide police with a little extra information. That is certainly not worth billions, but it is worth the $4 million that Canadian police organizations now say the registry costs every year to run. In a budget the size of the federal government's, $4 million is practically a rounding error. Many of the bigger figures that are bandied about concern the entire program of licensing, safety training and registering all guns, not just the long-run registry. We've already paid -- overpaid -- for the long-gun registry. We can't get that money back. We can only decide whether to throw out the system or keep it. Charlie Angus, an NDP MP from northern Ontario, once opposed the registry because of the cost and the needless hoops through which his constituents had to jump. Now, he says, many of the problems have been solved or can be, and he's turned off by the attack ads and over-the-top rhetoric coming from the Conservative party. He's a sensible guy and, perhaps, a bellwether for public opinion on this issue. If Prime Minister Stephen Harper really wanted to kill the registry, he could have done it with a government bill. And if he really wanted to reduce the size of the government bureaucracy, he wouldn't have promised to create a new payroll centre in Miramichi, N.B., where the firearms processing centre is now. No matter which way the vote goes, life won't be much affected for Canadians, gun owners or not. Scrapping it would take a tool away from the police, but the police would manage, as they did before. Keeping it does not mean, contrary to some of the wilder Conservative rhetoric, that Canada is on the road to becoming a police state. The registry is not, in principle, an undue infringement of freedom. If the Liberals and some NDP MPs sincerely believe the registry can be maintained without further cost overruns and without unnecessary hassles for gun owners, they will be right to vote to keep it. © Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 10:56:49 -0600 From: Joe Gingrich Subject: Saskatoon Police Investigation deliberately flawed; http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Investigation+flawed+Officer+found+guilty+impaired+ driving/3544435/story.html Investigation flawed; Officer found guilty of impaired driving By Betty Ann Adam, The StarPhoenix September 18, 2010 Officer Bzdel "dithered for 47 minutes while his duty was placed on hold," A Saskatoon Police Service constable deliberately conducted a flawed investigation of a fellow officer, who was found guilty Friday of impaired driving, a provincial court judge has found. Breath samples that proved Const. Roy Rodgers's blood-alcohol level was over the legal limit had to be thrown out of court because Const. Gerald Bzdel violated Rodgers' charter rights by delaying a demand for a roadside breathalyser, Judge Stan Loewen found in a scathing 15-page decision. Bzdel, an officer with nine years of experience at the time, "dithered for 47 minutes while his duty was placed on hold," Loewen wrote. "The police in this case appear to be benefiting their friend, a fellow police officer, by the breach in question," Loewen wrote. The judge also "had to pretty much ignore most, if not all" of Bzdel's evidence that Rodgers showed no signs of impairment. Instead, Loewen accepted the evidence of other officers who described common signs of impairment. On May 24, 2009, Rodgers was charged with the two standard charges laid in drunk driving cases -- impaired driving and driving with a blood-alcohol content over .08 -- after spinning up over a curb into a parking lot beside the intersection of Idylwyld Drive and 22nd Street. Const. Kai Noesgaard, an officer with less than two years on the force, was driving a patrol car that happened to arrive at the intersection immediately after. Another motorist waved to the officer and pointed to Rodgers' car. Noesgaard pulled up behind the car and went to the driver's window, where he immediately recognized Rodgers as an officer significantly senior to him and noticed several signs of impairment, including bloodshot eyes, flushed face, slurred speech and the smell of alcohol on his breath, court has heard. Rodgers also licked and smacked his lips while talking. The young officer told his partner, Bzdel, who went and asked Rodgers what was going on, but did not first give him the required reminder of his rights or warning that his words could be used as evidence against him. Rodgers told him he "was drinking and should not have been driving." That statement had to be thrown out as evidence because the failure to state the rights and warnings violated Rodgers' charter rights, Loewen said. Back in the cruiser, the officers sat down to "devise a course of action," because they were concerned about a senior officer who might be driving while impaired, Loewen found. Rodgers' girlfriend, who was in his car, came to the police cruiser and suggested the officers call a cab for the couple, and that could end the matter. Bzdel sent her back to Rodgers' car and decided to call a supervisor. Sgt. Harley Stamnes eventually arrived and they talked some more. Another senior officer arrived and immediately told Bzdel to get a breath sample. By the time Bzdel made the demand, 47 minutes had gone by. The officer who conducted the breathalyser at the police station also knew Rodgers and testified that Rodgers was drunk, based on a comparison with his usual demeanour. Const. Eric Flogan also testified that Rodgers said in the context of his being arrested for drinking and driving, that "it had been a long time coming." That statement was admitted into evidence because the rights and warnings had been given. Loewen noted Bzdel explained the delay "in many ways": He said it was his own decision to delay contacting the superior officer; he needed his sergeant to direct him on what charge to lay; he made reference to a police policy; he "complained" he had no witnesses to the actual driving and he said the female passenger refused to give a statement. After reading the police policy for investigating matters involving members of the service, Loewen found several ways in which Bzdel had violated it. "Const. Bzdel did not deal with the matter thoroughly or expeditiously," Loewen wrote. The policy "also talks about protecting a police officer's charter rights which in this case were not protected at all but rather breached." It talks about avoiding the appearance of conflict of interest, but that was "exacerbated and certainly not prevented," the judge wrote. "There are only two plausible reasons for Const. Bzdel's lack of action. One reason could be incompetence and the other is that his actions were deliberate." There is no evidence Bzdel is not competent but rather that he deliberately conducted a flawed investigation, Loewen found. Loewen preferred Noesgaard's evidence, pointing out that unlike Bzdel, he took proper notes from the very beginning. "He recorded the times in his notes and took appropriate action throughout the evening. This is as it should be in all cases, and in particular where the investigation by a police officer relates to the potentially criminal conduct of a fellow officer," Loewen wrote. Police Chief Clive Weighill will not comment on the decision until after Rogers is sentenced, police spokesperson Alyson Edwards said Friday. Crown prosecutor Scott Bartlett said he will ask for the mandatory minimum sentence of a $1,000 fine and a one-year driving prohibition when the matter returns to court Oct. 8. Defence lawyer Ron Piche said he will consider the possibility of appealing the verdict. Rodgers has been on paid medical leave since the charge was laid. badam@sp.canwest.com ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V14 #73 ********************************** 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".)