Cdn-Firearms Digest Sunday, December 12 2010 Volume 14 : Number 191 In this issue: What's wrong with facing down furry critters? by Rex Murphy Re: Vegans railgun Column: Anti-blasphemy resolution at UN is absurd FAA Loses Track of 132,000 Aircraft; "questionable registration" BCWF ALERT: 80-year-old widow battles off attacker with pitchfork ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, December 11, 2010 3:08 pm From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: What's wrong with facing down furry critters? by Rex Murphy From: John B. Holdstock [mailto:jbholdstock@shawcable.com] Sent: December-11-10 12:04 PM To: John B. Holdstock Subject: BCWF ALERT #146/2010: What's wrong with facing down furry critters? What’s wrong with facing down furry critters? By: Rex Murphy National Post, December 11th, 2010 http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/12/11/rex-murphy-what%E2%80%99s-wrong-with-facing-down-furry-critters/ It’s been quite some time since Fess Parker — coonskin cap on head and long rifle in hand — half-sung, half-yodelled the great anthem of Davy Crockett, King of the Wild Frontier. Parker played the legendary frontiersman/congressman Crocket both on TV and in a feature film. He was also one of a number of singers who sent the song about Crockett onto the hit parade of the 1950s more than once. No question it’s a song about a hero. We’re told right in the first stanza that he was “born on a mountaintop,” which is a pretty special way of arriving in the world — or, for that matter, Tennessee. But the real stamp indicating that he’s a hero-to-be comes in the third line stating that “he killed himself a bear when he was only three.” Being able to handle yourself in the woods and face down the furry critters that live there is something Americans (and Canadians) have long recognized as a mark of character and competence. Speaking of which, Sarah Palin shot a caribou on the recent episode of her Discovery Channel travelogue, Sarah Palin’s Alaska. Evidently the sight of the downing assaulted the brain and sensibilities of one of Hollywood’s princes, Aaron Sorkin — the man who perpetrated the seven soporific and suffocatingly earnest seasons of The West Wing. May I note that, outside a forced viewing of Oprah wailing to Barbara Walters, modern television has no greater torment than any episode of The West Wing. Keep in mind that I’ve seen episodes of Geraldo At Large, so I’m setting the bar quite high here. Sorkin immediately lashed out on what has become the official complaints office of outraged progressives, the Huffington Post, berating Palin in terms that would be harsh if applied to the Ebola virus. He called her filming of the hunt a “snuff film”; lumped her in with Michael Vick, the felon dogfight empresario; more than implied she enjoyed “torturing” animals; and essentially put her down as “deranged” and “disgusting.” He capped the whole thing off ever so graciously with a kind of warning to “Sarah Palin’s Army of Arrogant A–holes,” who are also, he tells us, a bunch of “macho Sh–heads.” The last shot of the abusive fusilade was an accusation that Palin had done something no one else had ever done. He charged: “That was the first moose ever murdered for political gain.” Where to begin, as they say. Well, first, it wasn’t a moose. It was a caribou. Certainly, a real sign of respect for the animal might be to get its name, or kind, right. Of the vile “snuff film” slur, I’d say that’s both a term and a product far more likely to be found and appreciated in Aaron Sorkin’s Hollywood neck of the woods than in Sarah Palin’s. Furthermore, where’s Sorkin’s appreciation for Palin’s environmentalism? She’s showing herself to be one of the most advanced of our kind these days: She’s a locavore. No carbon footprint on her prime rib. But what on earth was Sorkin attempting to say with his confused lament that Palin’s was the “first moose” ever killed for politics? Palin hunted before politics, and will continue to do so after politics. Same goes for her husband. It’s what people do in Alaska — or Newfoundland. She didn’t just take it up for the Discovery Channel. Secondly, unlike those who are on a first-name basis with Martin and Charlie Sheen, most people have considerable admiration for those who can make their way in the wilds. As the Davy Crockett song makes so vividly clear, hunting prowess has always been held in special esteem — and that esteem was not exhausted with the end of pioneer days. The skill still earns a man — or a woman — a singular kind of credit with others. Sorkin stumbles into this insight but doesn’t recognize that he has. How would it advantage Palin to kill a moose or caribou on television unless people saw the deed as something admirable? I know that back home in Newfoundland, if your local Member of the House of Assembly (MHA) has a moose licence and can find a moose, shoot it, clean it and bring it out — why then that MHA has shown a kind of credential. He is an adult, a person who can take care of himself, who understands some of the rhythms of Newfoundland life and who is continuing some of its finer traditions. It’s a statement. The moose isn’t shot for politics, but it inevitably falls into some loosely considered political context. If you’re a numbnut who can’t find your way around in the woods and wouldn’t know a moose from an oil truck — why then that’s a statement too. And of course hunting is not just limited to moose: Also pursued for their various delights are (and I’m naming only some examples) partridge, turr, rabbit and, of course, the ubiquitous and savoury seal. Hunting, like poetry, offers both utility and pleasure. Once again it seems, as is often the case with most matters Palin, that it’s the former Alaskan governor’s critics who are both out of touch and intemperate. ************** BCWF ALERT John B. Holdstock BC Wildlife Federation Kelowna, B.C. http://www.bcwf.bc.ca/   The world is run by those who show up. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 21:40:08 -0400 From: "M.J. Ackermann, MD" Subject: Re: Vegans Try this. It works every time: Vegan =V Me =M V: Unlike you knuckle draggers, /I/ don't harm any animals. /I/ am morally superior! I don't eat them. I don't wear them. I don't use products that were tested on them! M: I think I see your point, but please tell me, just what /do/ you eat? I am assuming that like any mammal, you actually /do/ eat? V: I eat vegetables, of course! M: No eggs? Milk? Shellfish? V: Nope! M: OK, then. What do you wear? You're not a nudist are you? V: Obviously not! I only wear clothing made from plant or synthetic fiber. I neither eat nor wear animals! M: Hmm, I'm beginning to see the pattern. How about medicines? Many are made using animal products. V: Never! I ensure that all medicines I take are either synthesized in labs or extracted from plants. M: OK, then. Let me see if I have this straight...you really take diligent care to ensure you do not hurt any animals, right? Don't eat 'em. Don't hunt 'em. Don't wear 'em. Don't use products that require experimenting on 'em. Am I right? V: Exactly! M: Very well. I'll concede your moral superiority, but before I do, I have two small questions. V: Go ahead. Questions from a neanderthal knuckle-dragger shouldn`t be hard to answer. M: Where do the plants you get your food, clothing, and medicine come from? Are they direct gifts from God, created in your refrigerator for your personal consumption? V: Why they're grown on farms, of course! Anyone with a Grade 2 education should know that! And I don't appreciate you bringing religion into it! M: I'm sorry, it's just that I kind of figured they had to come from farms, what with the need for high production, quality control, and all that. Still I was sort of hoping you may have had another source for them, smart, morally superior person that you are. V: Farms! I already told you (exasperated sigh). M: Please tell me, where did the farms come from? V: What? They were always there. They are made up of geographic terrain, and that is relatively unchanging. M: I apologize, I should have been more specific. What were the farms before they were farms? V: What??! I don't know. Countryside, I guess. M: Exactly! They were pristine countryside. Or to be more specific, they were wildlife habitat, supporting a rich and varied ecosystem comprised of, amongst other creatures, millions of individuals from thousands of species of animals. All are gone now. Killed by us humans, and you among us, so that we can plant vegetable monocultures otherwise known as farms! Don't try to tell me you don't harm animals. We all do. We cannot exist without doing so. The difference between you and me is, I actually support the culturing and nurturing of millions of animals - yes so that I can eat them - whereas you just kill them to replace their habitat with broccoli! V: Urk!!?? M: Y'all have a nice day, now, hear? - -- M.J. Ackermann, MD (Mike) Rural Family Physician, Sherbrooke, NS mikeack@ns.sympatico.ca "Hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst". ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 07:40:07 -0500 From: Jules Sobrian Subject: railgun If I am not mistaken, the railgun was invented by a Canadian named Bull from Montreal. The west showed no interest in it. When a middle eastern (muslim) country, showed an interest in it, Mossad murdered him in Belgium or the Netherlands. This invention is Canadian, not US navy. Jules ------------------------------ Date: Sun, December 12, 2010 11:17 am From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: Column: Anti-blasphemy resolution at UN is absurd CALGARY HERALD - DECEMBER 12, 2010 Anti-blasphemy resolution at UN is absurd BY DAN SHAPIRO, Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership http://www.calgaryherald.com/life/Anti+blasphemy+resolution+absurd/3965027/story.html The recent UN Human Rights Council draft resolution on "Combating defamation of religions" would make George Orwell roll over in his grave. If adopted by the UN General Assembly, it will give governments around the world unacceptable powers. In the name of preventing religious discrimination, the resolution insulates religious orthodoxy from all criticism. The resolution is incoherent, self-contradictory and a gross violation of the fundamental freedoms of religion and expression. Sponsored by Morocco on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), it lends cover and legitimacy to the blasphemy laws of oppressive states which do not respect their citizens' religious freedom. It thus precludes any possibility of an Islamic reformation, the very thing many Muslims want. How can you "defame" a religion by saying something "false" about it? "Defamation" involves making a purportedly factual claim about someone that harms their reputation, but is false. For example, Jerry Falwell famously sued Hustler publisher Larry Flynt for printing a cartoon implying Falwell had sex with his own mother in an outhouse. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that public figures such as Falwell cannot be protected from offensive speech recognizable as satire. Why, then, should "religious symbols and venerated personalities" be protected from ridicule, as the resolution suggests? Besides, religious disagreement is a very different beast than protecting individuals' reputations. It is about the truth or falsity of the religion or religious claims. So, you can't have a law against saying something "false" about a religion precisely because there is no agreed upon means of determining truth or falsity here. If religious disputes are to be decided by the state, they will come down on the side of orthodoxy and against dissenting views every time. The resolution claims, disingenuously, that it aims to combat discrimination based on religion. Of course, we should combat actual religious discrimination. For example, if you don't get a job because you are Muslim or a Jew, that is unjustifiable discrimination. But this doesn't mean that Islam or Judaism should be protected from criticism and debate. The resolution is incoherent because it targets the wrong kind of discrimination and protects the wrong entities. Individuals have human rights to be protected; ideas, ideologies, religions and states do not. Yet, the resolution claims that it protects freedom of religion. Invoking a measure that restricts freedom of religion (by seeking to make it illegal to express religious views that differ from official opinion) is a funny way to protect this fundamental freedom. Belief systems such as religions are not homogeneous. Blasphemy laws exacerbate, rather than reduce, discrimination based on religion. Such laws violate state neutrality, since the state evaluates competing religious claims and punishes the dissenting minority. Minorities who differ from the majority religion, for example Christians or non-believers in Muslim-majority countries, are at risk. So too are minority co-religionists, such as Ahmadis who do not view Muhammad as the last Prophet and are persecuted as apostates in many Muslim-majority countries. Case in point: "Although Christians, Ahmadis, and Hindus make up less than three per cent of Pakistan's population, they have accounted for about half of the blasphemy defendants over the last two decades," according to "Policing Belief," a recent Freedom House report. Pakistan's Penal Code imposes capital punishment for blasphemy, including for defamation of Islam. You can't have meaningful freedom of religion and conscience without robust freedom of speech. For if we're not free to express our deeply held beliefs, then it makes no sense to speak of freedom of religion and conscience. In the case of blasphemy or "defamation of religion" laws, there is a dangerously slippery slope since they are often used to punish political opponents and dissidents. For example, bloggers in Pakistan and Iran who have criticized their governments have been charged with "defaming Islam." Unfortunately, it bears constant repetition: No government, church, mosque, synagogue or UN Human Rights Council should coerce you into thinking or saying -- or, not thinking or not saying -- what you believe (short of the infamous yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre exception). The "defamation of religions" resolution is not about protecting human rights; it is about justifying repression of opinion not sanctioned by the authorities. The resolution does not advance freedom of religion; on the contrary, it curtails it in dangerous ways. Dan Shapiro is a research associate with the Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership. - --------------------------- WASHINGTON TIMES - DECEMBER 11, 2010 EDITORIAL: The United (Muslim) Nations? U.N. resolution gives special protection to Islamist regimes http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/10/the-united-muslim-nations/ - --------------------------- UNITED NATIONS: Sixty-fourth General Assembly - Third Committee - 41st & 42nd Meetings (AM & PM) THIRD COMMITTEE APPROVES RESOLUTION AIMED AT 'COMBATING DEFAMATION OF RELIGIONS' http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/gashc3966.doc.htm - --------------------------- NATIONAL POST - NOVEMBER 24, 2008 Steven Edwards: UN gives Islamic states 'cover' for anti-blasphemy laws http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/11/24/steven-edwards-un-approves-sinister-cover-for-anti-blasphemy-laws.aspx ------------------------------ Date: Sun, December 12, 2010 12:15 pm From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: FAA Loses Track of 132,000 Aircraft; "questionable registration" FAA Loses Track of 132,000 Aircraft December 10, 2010 - 3:51 PM | by: Rick Leventhal http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/12/10/f-a-a-loses-track-of-132000-aircrafts/?test=latestnews There are 357,000 private and commercial aircraft in the U.S., including small planes, private jets, big airliners and cargo planes.  The Federal Aviation Administration has revealed a third of those aircraft have "questionable registration," meaning the government is no longer sure who owns them.  That's going to change, but it's going to take three years. Under the old rules a plane was registered when purchased but there was no requirement to re-register unless the aircraft was sold or scrapped or the owner moved or died.  The plan was voluntary and according to the FAA, year after year an increasing number of owners failed to update their registration or file the proper paperwork.  Today, the FAA says there are questions about the ownership of more than 132,000 aircraft, an astounding number that has security experts shaking their heads. Bob Strang, a retired FBI agent and former co-chair of the New York 9/11 Anti-Terrorism Task Force, called it "shocking," saying "this should've been done a long time ago.  We need to be able to immediately identify the owner of any plane by it's tail number.  Police officers can I.D. vehicles from their tags within seconds... it's insane we can't do it with planes." Another retired Federal agent, Bill Daly, says he's very concerned that planes could be used by drug smugglers or worse, terrorists. "In my view these planes could be used to attack us." Letters went out last week informing the first batch of owners of the change, requiring them to re-register their aircraft and renew that registration every three years.  The plan will cost the government roughly 30 million dollars but the cost to owners is the same as it was nearly forty years ago.  It's still just five bucks a plane. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association supports the legislation and spokesman Chris Dancy says the situation is likely not as bad as it sounds.  "It's possible there have been some sales where the owner failed to follow through... it's possible that the paperwork got lost but in most cases the aircraft is probably right where the FAA heard it was.  They just don't know it for a fact. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, December 12, 2010 12:22 pm From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: BCWF ALERT: 80-year-old widow battles off attacker with pitchfork From: John B. Holdstock [mailto:jbholdstock@shawcable.com] Sent: December-10-10 4:31 PM To: John B. Holdstock Subject: BCWF ALERT #144/2010: 80-year-old widow battles off attacker with pitchfork The story below brings up some interesting questions. Mrs. Dysart, the 80 year old lady, fended of her attacker with a pitchfork - a farm implement but nevertheless a tool that can be used as a lethal weapon. The police say that they were "impressed by her spirited defence" and that she "used the right amount of force" in saving herself from her attacker. Would their position be different if Mrs. Dysart had pointed a firearm at the attacker or had actually shot at him? Or would they have confiscated her firearm(s) and contemplated laying charges? The Canadian Criminal Code says, in part: 34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself. (2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if (a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and (b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm. Alice Dysart may have been fortunate in that she didn't inflict a fatal injury on her attacker. Had she done so she very possibly been in court defending her actions and trying to convince a judge that she was in fear of her life. No doubt she would have won that argument in court, but not before she had experienced additional mental trauma and expended considerable dollars on legal fees. What it boils down to is that Canadians have very limited rights to defend themselves without ending up in court. There are a couple of cases that illustrate this going to the courts right now, one of them told in ALERT #138. ****************** 80-year-old widow battles off attacker with pitchfork By: Joe O'Connor, National Post, December 10, 2010 http://www.nationalpost.com/news/year+widow+battles+attacker+with+pitchfork/ 3954759/story.html Alice Dysart was just getting ready for bed. It had been a long night, a good night, sitting around with an old girlfriend, telling stories, sharing a few laughs. But it was getting late. It was 9:45 p.m. Her friend had gone home, and Ms. Dysart was tidying up, going from room to room turning out the lights. Ms. Dysart is 80. Sometimes she can't believe it, but there it is. She lives alone in the big white farmhouse on Irishtown Road, in Irishtown, N.B., and has ever since her husband, Langton, passed away 20 months ago. And she had always felt safe there, until last week. "My friend left, and I went in the living room and turned off the lights and then I came back into the kitchen," Ms. Dysart says. "When I heard the shattering of the glass, I started screaming as loud as I could. I started screaming and I went straight to the back door. And he was outside. I was inside. I could have touched him. "He broke a pane of glass [in the door]. I was right close to him. I wanted to see who it was. I just kept screaming and screaming. He wanted to break the door down." Ms. Dysart was terrified. She looked around for something, anything, to repel the would-be intruder. And there it was, gathering dust in a corner: a three-pronged pitchfork. "We have a shovel," she says. "And we have a pitchfork - doing nothing - and I happened to see it, a three-pronged fork. I grabbed it and I just started hitting him through the window he had broken. I started hitting him, and hitting him and hitting him. And he was trying to break in just the same. He was pushing on the door. He was frantic to get in. And I was frantic to live, to get him away." Ms. Dysart laughs. She still can. She heard through the grapevine that the man at the door is a drug addict. That he thought there was a safe in the house full of money. "There is no safe," Ms. Dysart says. "No money." There never has been. Time passed slowly on that terrifying night. Ms. Dysart could hear herself screaming, see the man at the door - and see the pitchfork in her hands. She kept jabbing at him. Striking him with all her might. Ms. Dysart is strong, she says, doesn't take any medication and is in pretty damn good shape for her age. Eventually, the man at the door backed off, melted away into the darkness. "I must have hurt him," she says."I think I am a real nice person. If he had come and knocked on my door, I probably would have opened it. That's the kind of person I am. I like to laugh. I like to joke. I am a soft-hearted person." She dialed 911. Two days later the RCMP made an arrest. They were impressed with Ms. Dysart's spirited defence. "She used as much force as necessary to discourage the intruder from entering," Corporal Marie Beaudry told the CBC. Ms. Dysart suspects her fate would have been much worse if he had successfully battered down the door. She was close enough to touch the man. Even now, she imagines him asking her for money, demanding to know where the safe was. And how would she have answered? What would he have done when she said, "No, no, there is no money. There is no safe?" "He would have killed me," Ms. Dysart says. "I truly believe that. He wouldn't have believed me about the money. He would have hit me, and hit me. He needs to be put away, I wish to God that that they do that." Irishtown has rallied around its' pitchfork-wielding octogenarian. A steady parade of friends has stopped by to visit. They phone Ms. Dysart all the time. People are looking out for her. The house on Irishtown Road is home. And until last week, it was full of happy memories. Her husband grew up there. Together, they raised four children there. After her Langton died, Alice never thought once about moving. Why would she? How could she? She has lived in the same spot for 50 years. But a criminal she fought off with a dusty old pitchfork has tainted this peaceful, happy place. Ms. Dysart can't come home at night without looking over her shoulder, wondering if someone is behind her, wondering if the bad man has bad friends. "I have been happy here all along," she says, her voice growing soft. "I had my family here. This is my home. And now it is going to feel different. I am not sure what I am going to do." Stephen Nagle, 46, was charged with break and entering, covering his face and loitering at night. He appeared in a Moncton court on Wednesday, and has a bail hearing scheduled for Friday. ************** BCWF ALERT John B. Holdstock BC Wildlife Federation Kelowna, B.C. http://www.bcwf.bc.ca/ The world is run by those who show up. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V14 #191 *********************************** 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".)