Cdn-Firearms Digest Saturday, September 25 2010 Volume 14 : Number 094 In this issue: Re: NATIONAL POST: How to hate guns and still love a Re: Colleagues laud new Gov. Gen. *NFR* Bill C-29 Re: Conservative majority only second in 70 years Re: NATIONAL POST: How to hate guns and still love a Oh, Canada . . Re: Bill C-29 Re: FSIN wants registry exemption ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 15:43:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Vladyslav Strashko Subject: Re: NATIONAL POST: How to hate guns and still love a Typical liberal: "I don't like it, so it must be banned, except it should not apply to me, my family or friends..." Reminds me about gun hating city mayor that attended another gun hate summit for the gun control hosted by gun control lobby in US, who was later arrested for illegal possession of the handgun...OR Mothers against violence (sponsored fake group by Coalition) who promote gun control, but at the same time they actually had their sons to kill other kids with illegal handguns and then killed in return with illegal guns (one of them even blocked police from catching her another son who was caught with two prohibited firearms anyway). However, on TV, they all "against violence." Sick! - --- On Sat, 9/25/10, Dennis & Hazel Young wrote: From: Dennis & Hazel Young Subject: NATIONAL POST: How to hate guns and still love a To: "Firearms Digest" Date: Saturday, September 25, 2010, 3:40 PM NATIONAL POST - SEPTEMBER 25, 2010 Dave Bidini: How to hate guns and still love a man who loves them http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Dave+Bidini+hate+guns+still+love+loves+them/3575477/story.html I hate guns. I despise them. They kill and they bring down cities and people and cultures. I hate that men have to express themselves through violence and that we use guns to kill women. Long guns are responsible for four times the domestic violence than handguns, and ever since the long gun registry was announced, these kinds of killings have declined year by year. So has suicide by rifle. There's nothing anti-constitutional about the policing of weapons. It's about enforcing a respect for life, and making sure weapon owners are less tempted to use guns on someone they love, or themselves. >snipped< ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 18:55:13 -0400 From: "mred" Subject: Re: Colleagues laud new Gov. Gen. *NFR* A Canadian GG??? holy cow Batman what next ??? Ed/on - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Gingrich" To: "undisclosed-recipients:" Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010 1:27 PM Subject: Colleagues laud new Gov. Gen. *NFR* > "He understands constitutional issues due to his involvement in Quebec > politics and work on various government reports and should have little > trouble if faced with constitutional questions." > > Is Johnston fair-minded unlike Canadian judges and "neutral" courts? > > http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Colleagues+laud/3578863/story.html > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 19:11:31 -0400 From: Subject: Bill C-29 Bill C-29 - Learning from the USA Interesting discussion on CGN. Put forth by a Conservative MP! http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=516639&highlight=c29&page=3 PIPEDA controls what private companies are allowed to do with information they collect about you. That includes how and when they can give it to the police. Situations could include (examples taken from actual cases): - -Police asking an airline to reveal who is on a particular flight - -Police looking for transaction and account information from your bank - -Police demanding that an ISP identify you based on your IP address. - -Police demanding than a phone company provide a log of your activities. - -Police asking a credit card company and sporting goods store to find out how much ammo you're purchasing. - -General investigating The new law would require companies to give this information to police, on request, without a warrant. That means that the police would not have to demonstrate to a judge that they have a reasonable suspicion that there has been a crime. They could just show up at the company and say they need the information for "policing purposes". Companies would not have to do any diligence whatsoever to make sure it was a legit request. http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/LegislativeSummaries/Bills_ls.asp?Language=E&lang=E&ls=c29&source=libra ry_prb&Parl=40&Ses=3#txt4 Among the highlights: - - allows your personal information to be forcefully collected for "policing services" and doesn't define policing services. - - redefines "lawful authority" (to collect personal information) in such a way that a warrant or court order is no longer required. - - The organization disclosing the information to authorities without consent is under no legal obligation to verify that it possesses the necessary lawful authority before disclosing the information requested. - - an organization is also prohibited from disclosing any information about what was in the subpoena, warrant or government request, and from giving the individual whose personal information is concerned access to such details. So essentially, the gov't wants to create a way to be able to legally collect personal information about you, investigate you, etc. They want to be able to do this without first getting a warrant. They want to be able to share this information with other government agencies. They don't have to tell you, get a warrant, and they don't even have to tell you after the fact what they found out. This is BS. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 18:57:01 -0400 From: "mred" Subject: Re: Conservative majority only second in 70 years Hey I qualify ~! pick me, pick me , pick me , ed/on - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Gingrich" To: "undisclosed-recipients:" Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010 1:07 PM Subject: Conservative majority only second in 70 years http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Tories+poised+seize+rare+majority+Senate /3578865/story.html > > Tories poised to seize rare majority in Senate > > Conservative majority only second in 70 years > > By Juliet O'Neill, Postmedia News > > September 25, 2010 > > Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper will soon lay claim in the > unelected Senate to what he does not have in the House of Commons: A > majority. > > With two Liberal senators retiring in coming weeks and another facing > possible expulsion, the Conservatives will be able to claim a majority -- > albeit a razor-thin one -- in the Senate for only the second time in 70 > years. > > Conservatives will be able to claim a majority -- albeit a razor-thin one > -- in the Senate for only the second time in 70 years. > > It's a milestone that Harper is bound to relish; whether it will give him > much more clout in the 105-member upper chamber is less certain. > > The mandatory retirement of Toronto Liberal Sen. Peter Stollery on Nov 29 > creates an opening that would give the Conservatives 53 seats, a majority > of one. A week later, a second seat opens for a Harper appointment when > Quebec City Liberal Jean Lapointe retires. > > The Liberals will then be reduced to 47 seats, although one of their > senators, Raymond Lavigne,is suspended from caucus and barred from voting > pending a court case. If convicted, he will be expelled from the Senate, > opening a third seat for Harper. There are four other senators unaligned > with the two big parties. > > Harper has appointed 33 senators in his five years in government building > a group of what government Senate leader Marjory LeBreton calls "the > newbies"who are putting a younger face on what MPs refer to as 'the other > place.' But it only takes a couple of absentees from the ranks of elderly > and frail senators to blow the advantage of a tiny majority. > > LeBreton says the majority, however small,puts the government in a better > position to advance its agenda, from Senate reform proposals to > law-and-order measures and budget bills. Liberals predict almost nothing > will change. > > "I assume the prime minister expects his legislation will pass more > quickly and more easily once he gets a majority," Senate Liberal leader > James Cowan of Nova Scotia said in an interview. "But we are not going to > be pushed into passing legislation without having a chance to look at it" > Liberal senators and Progressive Conservative Lowell Murray put up their > dukes last spring over a 900-page piece of omnibus legislation in which > the government had buried many provisions unrelated to the main purpose > of the bill -- to implement the federal budget. > > Despite a threat by Sen. Doug Finley,the prime minister's campaign chief, > of a fall election if the opposition did not toe the line on the budget > bill, Cowan said "we stuck to our guns and we were here until the middle > of July and we'll do the same thing from now on.The fact that our numbers > are slightly less and their numbers are slightly more isn't going to > change that position." Nor will the composition of Senate committees > change until after an election or prorogation of Parliament and the > opening of a new session. > > Senate procedures allowing what the Liberals call "study" and the > government calls "obstruction" won't change. Votes will remain tight on > contested bills. > > "We've got newer senators, younger senators, and our attendance has been > really quite good when we needed it," LeBreton said in an interview. > > "But it only takes one or two people to be sick or not able to attend for > some given reason. So even though we'll have,finally, the clear majority, > not just a working plurality like we have now, it's a very thin edge I'm > on in terms of winning votes in the Senate." Stollery,appointed by former > prime minister Pierre Trudeau, is retiring after three decades in the > Senate and nearly a decade in the Commons before that. Citing opinion > polls, he predicts the Conservative majority will be short lived. "I > really do believe the Conservatives have lost the momentum,"Stollery said > in an interview. "If they lose the next election, it'll be a Liberal > appointing senators very soon." Both Stollery and Lapointe face mandatory > retirement at age 75. > > Lapointe, a renowned Quebec singer and actor,turned up at the Senate vote > on budget implementation bill in July with a bandage on his head. > > He was recovering from surgery. > > A third seat could be opened if Lavigne, a Quebec senator who also served > in the Commons, is convicted on charges of fraud over $5,000, breach of > trust and obstruction of justice for allegations related to Senate travel > expense claims and whether a Senate staffer worked for him personally > while on the public payroll.The date for the court ruling is scheduled to > be set Nov. 12. > > Convicted persons are barred from the Senate,so Lavigne would be expelled > if he is found guilty.Lavigne was suspended from the Liberal caucus a few > years ago when police started investigating and, while he remains on the > Senate payroll, he is not allowed to vote. > > The last time the Conservatives gained a Senate majority was two decades > ago. Then-Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney invoked > an obscure provision of the Constitution and received permission from the > Queen to appoint eight extra senators to push the goods and services tax > through resistant Liberal ranks. > > Those senators were absorbed as other seats opened, eventually eroding > into a minority as a result of appointments by Jean Chretien of the > Liberals. > > © Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 19:21:38 -0400 From: "mred" Subject: Re: NATIONAL POST: How to hate guns and still love a what a bunch of hogwash ~! Unless youre Annie Oakley no one is allowed to hunt waterfowl with a "rifle" This turd doesnt know a rifle from a shotgun and his story is complete fiction. ed/on [AsstMod-RAM: I agree with you Ed. Pure Fiction] - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" To: "Firearms Digest" Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 8:34 AM Subject: NATIONAL POST: How to hate guns and still love a > NATIONAL POST - SEPTEMBER 25, 2010 > Dave Bidini: How to hate guns and still love a man who loves them > http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Dave+Bidini+hate+guns+still+love+loves+them/3575477/story.html > > I hate guns. I despise them. They kill and they bring down cities and > people and cultures. I hate that men have to express themselves through > violence and that we use guns to kill women.Long guns are responsible for > four times the domestic violence than handguns, and ever since the long > gun registry was announced, these kinds of killings have declined year by > year. So has suicide by rifle. There's nothing anti-constitutional about > the policing of weapons. It's about enforcing a respect for life, and > making sure weapon owners are less tempted to use guns on someone they > love, or themselves. > > Growing up, there were lots of guns in my house: long, deadly, beautiful > chambers, with carved wooden handles and crafted steel barrels. My dad > kept > them in a locker in the basement and told me never to handle them. They > were something to be feared, so I never took to them. I know one set of > anti-gun parents who changed the channel whenever a cop show or > Expendables trailer came on, insulating their children from the influence > of firearms. Then, after coming down for breakfast one morning,they found > their kids making pistols out of bread slices and shooting at each other > across the nook. Guns are loud and exciting and they splatter cartoon > blood across comic books and video screens. No matter where we live, > they're there from birth. It's what we do with them when we grow up that > matters. > > As a child, I remember watching my dad carefully clean his rifle in front > of the television. He worried over it the way I later worried over my > guitar: spooling the end of a shammy over his finger to reach the narrow > end of the barrel with the same technique I would have used to clean my > guitar's bridge, or gummy nut at the top of the neck. Despite the madness > of whatever was happening in our house, my dad laboured over the weapon > like a samurai over his blade. Our family has often wondered, jokingly, > whether he loved his family as much as he loved his guns.A few days after > my birth, he apparently asked my mom, "Everything OK? Great. I'll see you > in a few days!" before being collected by guys named Earl and Ken to head > toward Flesherton, Huntsville and Luther Marsh, home to their > long-standing gun club. After retelling the story, we express mock > outrage,but I harbour no bitterness. Days after my own daughter was born, > I was back at the rink playing hockey with my team. There were no guns > involved,but sometimes a man with a hockey stick can get himself in a lot > worse trouble. > > Guns are part of my dad's past-time, and this year, he'll honour opening > day of the hunting season despite turning 80 a few days later. And even > though I hate guns and killing and the glorification of weaponry, I'll go > with him to Wolfe Island and sit in the blind, waiting for the birds to > come in nice and low. At first, I thought this would be a source of inner > conflict, but I've learned that hunting allows people like my dad to > commune with Providence, a fact that gets lost in the long gun registry > debate. A lot of hunters are defensive about their pastime, and being > demonized by the anti-rifle movement is a source of frustration for them. > It's hard to suggest that those who kill living creatures shouldbe exempt > in any discussion about the ownership of weapons, but hunters are > respectful of the land and the environment because they know that,without > it, the opportunity to experience Canada in its essence would be lost. > Some shoot for the sake of killing things, but lots of hunters shoot > because it allows them to get close to the Earth. And to eat fresh game > grilled on the steps of their duck club, an experience that those who hug > pavement and keep to their city and suburban homes will never know. > > A few years ago, guns and hunting allowed me a great moment with my > father, > and had I not broadened my acceptance and understanding of firearms, this > never would have come to pass. We were sitting in the blind during the > night shoot with some friends. The men held guns and watched for woodies > coming over the bay, while I cradled a warm beer and quietly -- very > quietly -- listened to a Red Sox-Yankees baseball game on a transistor > radio. Every now and then, a cluster of ducks would appear and the men > took turns firing,yet my dad never once raised his rifle to his shoulder. > The birds were obvious to me,but he remained still, even though there was > lots to shoot at. The thought crossed my mind that, after all of these > years -- and despite his love of shooting -- my dad might not have been > very good at the sport he loved most. This endeared me even more to his > passion: lighting out at dawn with friends for the purposes of simply > hanging out, having a few laughs, and emptying endless shells without > securing a single bounty. > > After awhile, one of the men sitting in the blind spotted some ducks > cruising above the blind. He said, "Hey, Fred, why don't you give that a > tap?" My dad, thinking it over for a long moment,brought the rifle to his > shoulder, pointed it into the air, and fired,felling a bird with a single > shot. He turned to Colin: "Is that a good enough tap for you?" There was > laughter, and the sound of dogs hitting in the water. I still hate guns > and > weapons of all kinds. But here's hoping my dad keeps shooting for as long > as he can. To the corn-fed fowl who allowed us this moment,I am grateful. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 16:50:11 -0700 From: Len Miller Subject: Oh, Canada . . 83-year-old pulls gun on would-be robber By The Associated Press - September 25, 2010 http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/09/25/1841705/83-year-old-pulls-gun-on-would.html CLEARWATER, Fla. -- Knocked to the ground by a would-be robber, 83- year-old Charles Pace defended himself - by pulling a gun. Clearwater Police said Place was in a restaurant parking lot Wednesday when a man grabbed him from behind and tried to take his wallet. Place resisted and was knocked to the ground. Police said that's when Place pulled out a .25-caliber semi-automatic handgun. (this is a caliber OUTLAWED IN CANADA . . THE MAN WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED in Canada . . why he used it . . would be ignored by the court . ) Authorities said Place pointed it at the man and ordered him to leave him alone. The assailant, Bryan Treloar, ran and was followed by a witness. So you see, the victim just had to POINT . . that's all . . Police caught up with him and charged him with attempted strong arm robbery. He was being held on $10,000 bail. Place, who has a permit to carry a concealed weapon, wound up with small cuts on his hand. Bill Rose, Abbotsford, used an unloaded handgun to drive off a drug crazed burglar . . Rose suffered cuts in the attack . . so .. what did the Abbotsford PD do?? They took his gun away, so the 78 yr old veteran couldn't do it again . . Province . . 19 March 99 Page 1 . . I am sure the whole thing hastened the old man's death . . Stress tends to do just that . . Len Miller where nothing has changed . . ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 18:42:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: Bill C-29 - --- On Sat, 9/25/10, r0ger@shaw.ca wrote: > So essentially, the gov't wants to create a way to be able > to legally collect personal information about you, investigate you, > etc. They want to be able to do this without first getting a warrant. > > They want to be able to share this information with other government > agencies. > > They don't have to tell you, get a warrant, and they don't even have to > tell you after the fact what they found out. > > This is BS. Yup, the POH-LEECE sure do respect your rights, yup yup yup... Yours in TYRANNY! Bruce ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 20:03:58 -0600 From: Joe Gingrich Subject: Re: FSIN wants registry exemption Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 15:51:44 -0400 From: "mred" Subject: Re: FSIN wants registry exemption Nonsense, they never had guns to hunt and gather before the white man came on the scene so let them use what they used then~!!!!! Nowhere in their treaties does it say they can use guns to hunt and gather. ed/on - -------------------------- This approach opens a political wedge issue. It's very useful to the the govt. for segmenting the political effects of a united Canadian firearms community of 5 million people. The govt. uses wedge issues often. Lorne Gunter explained it very well not long ago. Yours in Tyranny, Joe Gingrich White Fox http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/09/13/lorne-gunter-the-gun-registry-wedge-issues-and-the-lefts-moral-superioty-complex/ Lorne Gunter: The gun registry, wedge issues and the left's moral-superiority complex" September 13, 2010 - 2:28 pm Over the past week, the NDP have been trying a clever spin that might enable some of their MPs to vote for the gun registry even though their constituents oppose it. The gambit? The Tories have left us no choice with their over-the-top rhetoric. So far, at least three of the 12 NDP MPs who voted in the spring to end the expensive, useless long-gun registry have announced they will vote to retain the registry at the next vote, expected later this month. The Liberals have already announced they will not permit their members to vote their consciences on Bill C-391, as they did this spring when eight Libs joined the Tories. The Liberals will whip their caucus to vote down the bill, so the 12 - now nine - dissident NDP MPs are critical to the bill's passage or failure. Most represent rural ridings where the voters dislike the registry. So now in an attempt to find an excuse that would let them vote with their urbanite socialist caucus colleagues against the bill (and in favour of the registry), the NDP leadership has come up with the flimsy story that the 12 would like to vote according to their constituents' wishes but, gee, the Tories are saying things like the RCMP and police chiefs are targeting gun owners who oppose the registry or threatening to smear any opposition MP who switches votes and, golly, that's just not fair. That kind of hardball has no place in politics. What rubbish. The Parliamentary press gallery has bought this tripe, but they can be convinced to believe anything. I doubt anti-registry voters, though, will except such explanations when next they get a chance to vote these mind-changing New Dems out of office. Claude Gravelle, the Northern Ontario MP who is the most recent New Dem to switch, insisted he wanted to keep voting to end long-gun registration. "Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, Conservatives had no interest in working collaboratively with other parliamentarians because they had intended all along to use this bill as a fundraising tool, and as a cynical way of dividing rural and urban Canadians." In other words, this is just another of those "wedge" issues the Tories are daily accused of using by the three opposition parties, as if, if they had their way, they would ever work with the Tories. Echoing Gravelle's talking points, former NDP National Secretary Gerald Caplan, writing in the Globe and Mail on Friday, said "New Democrats who say they're bound to side with constituents against the registry are wrong . Their overriding purpose should be to fight for principles, not to get re-elected." But isn't that a wedge, too? Can't those who oppose the registry do so on principle, just different principles than the registry's supporters? When supporters of the registry insist ending the gun bureaucracy is something only rural Canadians are interested in, that is as big a wedge - and as deliberate a one - as any Tory tactic. The hope of supporters is to embarrass fence-sitters into backing the registry by implying only less-cultured hinterland dwellers would be in favour of axing it. Wedge. When Heather Mallick writes in the Toronto Star that women worry about the end of the registry because it protects them against having "their own personal bodies torn apart by bullets," that's somehow not a wedge? When she adds "there are women walking around intact today who will die at the hands of their violent husbands if the registry vanishes," she isn't trying to drive a wedge between men and women? Or between Canadians undecided about the registry and those who oppose it? Come on. We columnists are wedge peddlers. It's the nature of our craft. The difference between we columnists on the right and those on the left, though, such as Caplan and Mallick, is that we rightists know that's what we're doing. It's a battle; we acknowledge that. Those on the left, though, all too often seem to think their beliefs and ideologies are morally superior and that superiority indemnifies them from anything so crass as ideological or partisan wedge use. They have swallowed their own bath water in convincing themselves they never argue for anything that isn't in the public's best interest, whether the public can see that or not. Think of Margaret Atwood's recent call for a prohibition on Sun TV, a Canadian version of Fox News. Oh, of course, she's all in favour of free speech, she just thinks Sun TV would "mimic the kind of hate-filled propaganda with which Fox News has poisoned U.S. politics." So it can be disallowed without infringing on free speech because propaganda isn't speech, it's hatred. Oh, what tangled little webs of logic they weave. What the left thinks and says on its broadcast and cable news services is nothing but truth and light and objectivity. Only conservatives are guilty of "hate-filled propaganda" and bias. And consider how anyone who opposes multiculturalism or favours smarter immigration rules is instantly labelled a racist. That's an attempt at wedging. Insisting private health care would leave the poor dying on the steps of hospitals inserts a wedge between upper-middle-class Canadians and the rest of us. So is claiming the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes. Both are forms of class envy and class envy is one of the oldest forms of wedge politics. But because it is a form favoured by liberals and leftists, few if any of them would every admit it was divisive. Abortion, the environment, language laws, regional disparity: All of these and many others are wedge issues used by the left all the time. When Liberal organizers in the 1980 federal election said "Screw the West, we'll take the rest," that wasn't wedging? Employment insurance programs that intentionally favour some regions over others - nothing wedgy about those. Nearly every political issue over which there is disagreement has an element of wedge to it. And every politician I have ever known - right and left - has used wedges to his or her advantage, either to achieve policy goals or win elections. National Post letters@nationalpost.com ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V14 #94 ********************************** 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".)