Cdn-Firearms Digest Saturday, December 31 2011 Volume 14 : Number 865 In this issue: Re: USA TODAY POLL: Does the Second Amendment give individuals ... [none] Black Flag exposed concerning SOPA Bureaucrats run amock Re: USA TODAY POLL: Does the Second Amendment give individuals ... Copy of my letter to Nat Post via their sandbox National Post Editorial Board: Scrap the gun registry, ... "B.C. RCMP officer sues co-workers after bomb in doll ... RE: British Rule Florida Juror Dismissed for 'Friending' Defendant on Facebook Kingmakers Re: National Post: Scrap the gun registry, and its records Re: USA TODAY POLL: Does the Second Amendment give individuals ... LETTER: Hypocrite Conservatives Making Easy To own Guns ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, December 30, 2011 5:43 pm From: "M.J. Ackermann, MD" Subject: Re: USA TODAY POLL: Does the Second Amendment give individuals ... ... the right to bear arms? Of course not. Their right to bear arms springs forth from their rights to life and to the defense of life. These rights are inherent in the human condition. The 2nd Amendment simply recognizes these rights. It does not grant them. Because rights arise from being human, no government or law ever grants rights, nor can they repeal them. They can only recognize or refuse to recognize them. Confusion in this regard has caused unnecessary grief for far to long. - -- 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: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 16:49:26 -0800 (PST) From: enigma1 Subject: [none] Subject: Just Asking Some Crucial Gun-Related Questions References: Sender: owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca Precedence: normal Reply-To: cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca I have restrained myself from contributing further to the Digest because my previous submissions were ill received due to an apparently misconstrued notion that I was a nefarious, anti-gun entity trying to provoke dissension among the rank and file. This was an erroneous conclusion. That said, I feel compelled to respond to Mr. Gunn's intelligent and interesting enquiry. Scenario # 1 is, in my opinion, the least likely to occur. Who would possibly invade Canada? The Russians? The Chinese? This unlikely scenario would mitigate an immediate armed American response -- by Canadian invitation, of course. The only other possible invasion would be from the uninvited Americans themselves. In that case, overwhelmed by its military might, limited civilian armed resistance would be futile. History would inevitably repeat itself as in Nazi occupied Europe. Civilian and government members would quickly sue for peace, adjust to the new reality and curry favour with their new masters, as in 'collaborate'. Disarmament of the population could be easily achieved by accessing government and police files of legitimate firearm owners. With the establishment of martial law, complete societal control would presumably negate the threat of roving gangs. Social order would resume upon trade of our national autonomy. Scenario #2 is more likely.  Quite possibly the most devastating, depending on the scope and virulence of the epidemic. If the epidemic was global and the rate of mortality greater than forty percent, first responders would more than likely be unavailable to assist an already frightened, panicked and dying population. Should the infrastructure of transportation, food, fuel and power be severely compromised then dangerous gangs of looters would pose the greatest threat to Canadians (and the rest of the world). Firearm regulations would cease to be relevant. Laws and their applications would be moot. This scenario could rival any Hollywood apocalyptic story production. Whoever survived the epidemic would have to further survive starvation, thirst, urgent medical needs and most importantly, ruthless and desperate gangs of armed thugs who would quickly organize and consolidate their own resources. Survival of the fittest would be the new rule of law.  Trade would then become the new currency. In this critical situation, any armed 'average' Canadian who resisted the primal urge of self-defence in the presence of hostile action towards himself and his family would undoubtedly perish quickly and violently. Sadly, there are individuals who would rather see their family murdered and perish themselves rather than take the life of their assailant. For the average, pampered, urban Canadian, survival in such a dangerously asymmetrical environment would require moral and physical gymnastics on a learning curve never before imagine. Life would be brutal and short.   Scenario #3 is much easier to envision, insofar that natural disasters, even those large in scope, tend to be localized and outside assistance is usually available within a reasonably short period of time. Social order and essential services tends to be restored relatively quickly. Any use of firearms, by the law abiding, except under the most clearly defined and necessary circumstance, may not pass the scrutiny of law enforcement at a later date. Clearly, any legally armed Canadian would have to be mindful of any current self-defence laws applicable to his or her actions and act in a measured and responsible manner. However, if the disaster was global in dimension, then I would direct the reader back to Scenario #2.   In conclusion, our American cousins, in my opinion, would fare better than Canadians if faced with an identical situation. Americans possess greater quantities and more technically efficient firearms then Canadians do. They have more latitude in clearly defined self-defence laws that favour the homeowner. Americans tend to rally quickly and form cohesive group security when threatened. This noble characteristic harkens back, no doubt, to pioneer days when communal co-operation was vital for survival in a savage and hostile land. Unfortunately, Canadians tend to rely instinctively on local law enforcement and various levels of government for their protection.                                                               --------   As an aside, I personally found Ms. Cukier's intelligence to be quite over rated, especially when she ventures outside of her comfort zone. When challenged, she does not express her anti-gun sentiments in a manner that is either pervasive or articulate. Unable to escape the rigid framework of leftist academia to which she owes much of her shallow success, she tends to fall back on tired dogma to support her increasingly fragile position. She also lacks poise.     ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 16:53:57 -0800 From: "Clive Edwards" <45clive@telus.net> Subject: Black Flag exposed concerning SOPA http://www.youtube.com/watch?featureplayer_embedded&vWJIuYgIvKsc Cordially, Clive Edwards "Just because I believe in non-aggression doesn't mean I believe in non-violence." "Just because I don't believe in being a victim doesn't mean I believe in being a bully." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 17:03:12 -0800 From: "Clive Edwards" <45clive@telus.net> Subject: Bureaucrats run amock http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/12/obamas-justice-department-joins-britains-climategate-leaker-manhunt/2006206 Cordially, Clive Edwards "Just because I believe in non-aggression doesn't mean I believe in non-violence." "Just because I don't believe in being a victim doesn't mean I believe in being a bully." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 17:50:32 -0800 (PST) From: Vladyslav Strashko Subject: Re: USA TODAY POLL: Does the Second Amendment give individuals ... This zombie from Nov 2007 keeps showing up all the time... ______________________________ From: Dennis & Hazel Young To: cfdmod@bogend.ca Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 1969 7:00 PM Subject: USA TODAY POLL: Does the Second Amendment give individuals ... ... the right to bear arms? Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms? http://www.usatoday.com/news/quickquestion/2007/november/popup5895.htm Results as of December 30, 2011, 11:09 AM MT YES 97% NO 2% UNDECIDED 1% TOTAL VOTES: 9,858,405 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, December 30, 2011 8:46 pm From: "M.J. Ackermann, MD" Subject: Copy of my letter to Nat Post via their sandbox (how I hate those things) http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/12/30/national-post-editorial-board-scrap-the-gun-registry-and-its-records/ > Regarding the Chicken Little uproar over the impending and much > deserved demise of the long gun portion of the gun registry: > > Media and the public continue to miss one important point: The > retention and public disclosure of government records was originally > and still is intended to lift the dark veil of secrecy from government > operations, exposing them to the light of public scrutiny. In this way > illegal and immoral acts against the citizenry by government or its > agents may be more quickly exposed and more easily rectified. > > It was never intended to permit the disclosure of private information > about individual citizens to axe-grinding statist organizations who > would use that information to do us harm. > > The Firearms Act is based on a fallacy, that guns have talisman-like > powers to take over the minds of lawful folk and turn us into > monsters. It was enacted fraudulently through overt lies and > manipulations by Allan Rock, Wendy Cukier and their ilk. It has > failed, just as have all such laws failed to enhance public safety > wherever and whenever they have been tried. > > There is absolutely no reason why this information should have been > collected in the first place, let alone retained after reason has > begun to reassert itself. > > The violent criminals already have illegal concealed carry, and since > the Firearms Act largely ignores them, focusing instead on that > segment of society that is 1/3 as likely as the general public to be > violent - us lawful gun owners - they are not hindered in any way by it.. - -- 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: Sat, December 31, 2011 12:00 am From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: National Post Editorial Board: Scrap the gun registry, ... ... and its records NATIONAL POST - FULL COMMENT -DECEMBER 30, 2011 - 5:33 PM ET National Post Editorial Board: Scrap the gun registry, and its records http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/12/30/national-post-editorial-board-scrap-the-gun-registry-and-its-records/ In a recent letter to the editor of the Edmonton Journal - a fellow Postmedia paper - Claude Roberto, the secretary general of the Bureau of Canadian Archivists, objected to plans by the Tory government to destroy the information collected on individual gun owners by the federal long-gun registry when the registry is closed next year. Mr. Roberto quoted from the Library and Archives of Canada Act and cited the United Nations' Declaration on Archives to justify his contention that the records belong to "society" and not to the government, so it is not up to the government to decide whether they should be destroyed quickly.We disagree. The inviolability of government records cannot trump the rights of individual, law-abiding citizens to protect their privacy from unwarranted government scrutiny. These records contain information that should never have been collected. The previous Liberal government had no business maintaining such scrutiny over Canadians who had committed no crimes nor given any reasonable cause to be closely watched for their gun-buying habits or movements with their duck guns or varmint rifles. The registry treated ordinary Canadians as though they were dangerous criminals or terrorists, just because they like to hunt or engaging in shooting sports. This was wrong. It was a form of reverse onus - presumed guilty until proven innocent just for having an interest in firearms. The sacrosanctity of government records cannot be divorced from a government's right (or lack thereof) to gather the contents of those records in the first place. Mr. Roberto writes that archives laws and UN declarations were created "to protect citizens' rights and underpin collective responsibility of all - citizens, public administrators, decision-makers, owners and holders of public and private archives - in managing records. But if the citizen is better protected by having unnecessary government files about him destroyed, and destroyed quickly, isn't that paramount to the need to ensure public records are, in Mr. Roberto's words, managed with "accountability and transparency?" Mr. Roberto makes one valid point: The gun registry's records will be destroyed 10 years after the registry is closed, even without Tory action. That is what Canada's archives law dictates. He is right that "if this is not a suitable retention period for the Department of Justice, the department should follow procedures in place to allow an earlier disposition date." If the Tories want faster destruction, they should legislate a procedure that fulfills their desire for quick erasure but one that also respects the Archives Act. But if, as Mr. Roberto contends, it is so vital for governments to destroy records with due process, shouldn't it be even more important for them to collect information on citizens with great caution? In the entire controversy over the Tories' proposed action, every champion of record retention has mentioned the need to preserve the sanctity of public files. It may well be wise to dispose of government records judiciously, even reluctantly. But then there should be an equally rigorous process governments must go through before they begin collecting sensitive information about their citizens. If it is always going to be difficult expunging information the government holds on citizens - even information it should never have gathered - then there must be equal protections at the front end of the process to ensure government collects only as much information as it legitimately needs to perform a valid function, such as public protection. Nor are we particularly swayed by those who argue that the long-gun registry is comparable to similar databanks for cars or pets. The registry's intended purpose was to monitor the activities of citizens the government feared might be dangerous. It tracked otherwise lawful commercial transactions, not to mention gifts and inheritances, between individuals who had committed no crime, all because the state feared that they someday might. Though many defenders of the long-gun registry have tried to retroactively declare that it was always intended as a simple computer archive designed to speed up police investigations, the safety-based rhetoric those same defenders used (and still use) to argue for the registry's preservation belie those claims. In democracies, citizens are the sovereigns, not governments or government archivists. The right of a government to preserve a record should never, therefore, supersede the right of its citizens to their privacy. National Post ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 01:56:27 -0600 From: Larry James Fillo Subject: "B.C. RCMP officer sues co-workers after bomb in doll ... ... explodes"-N.P. This is bizarre. Civil lawsuit? That sounds valid, but these two mounties should face criminal charges after returning from a suitable term of de-mining duty in Afghanistan. On top of criminal negligence, these two miscreants are incompetent. Who certified them? Now, the busiest province is out three bomb squad officers. No one is going to trust their judgement, and if the RCMP does, it destroys confidence in them, or what left of it. B.C. 's new Premier appears to have made a major mistake in renewing their contract. The new Commissioner is getting put to the test right out of the starting gate. At full complement required for provincial policing, he has no room to prune the deadwood. What would be left? Let's see how the aggrieved officer is treated, since it happened on duty? Would not the RCMP be liable for damages, too? http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/31/b-c-rcmp-officer-sues-co-workers-in-bomb-squad-after-doll-explodes/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 00:33:03 -0800 From: "Clive Edwards" <45clive@telus.net> Subject: RE: British Rule Thank you Jim for bringing up other instances of British malfeasance during the time of Empire. I would also add Cecil Rhodes' treacherous actions in South Africa against the blacks and the Boers and the opium wars with China. None the less the subjects of the Empire assimilated, often imperfectly, the expectation of liberty and individual freedom. This was a radical idea for most of the world. It is the British tradition refined by the Americans that lit the flame of liberty around the world, not the fiasco that the French call their Glorious Revolution which is more reminiscent of Lenin or Mao. That Britain and America both seem to have renounced liberty and individual freedom means the flame must be carried by others who have not yet had their revolutions and who likely don't eat roast beef. Cordially, Clive Edwards "Just because I believe in non-aggression doesn't mean I believe in non-violence." "Just because I don't believe in being a victim doesn't mean I believe in being a bully." ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 05:57:12 -0600 From: "Joe Gingrich" Subject: Florida Juror Dismissed for 'Friending' Defendant on Facebook http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/12/31/florida-juror-dismissed-for-friending-defendant-on-facebook/?testlatestnews Florida Juror Dismissed for 'Friending' Defendant on Facebook Published December 31, 2011| NewsCore SARASOTA, Fla. - A Florida man was kicked off a jury for sending a Facebook friend request to a defendant, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune reported Friday. Jacob Jock was selected to help decide a personal injury lawsuit resulting from a traffic accident, the paper said. But while he waited to be selected from a pool of jurors earlier this month he used his smartphone to see if he knew any of the people involved. After spotting an attractive female defendant named Violetta Milerman on Facebook he sent her a friendship request. "I accidentally friend requested her," Jock told the Herald-Tribune. "I didn't think it was a big deal. I didn't think I would get picked for the jury." Milerman informed her lawyer the next day and Senior Circuit Judge Nancy Donnellan dismissed Jock for ignoring instructions not to search the web for background. An attorney on the case, Damian Mallard, told the Herald Tribune that Jock was "very close to going to jail" for his actions. Despite coming close to a spell in jail for his indiscretion, he didn't appear too upset at missing out on the case. "Score ... I got dismissed!! apparently they frown upon sending a friend request to the defendant... haha," Jock wrote on Facebook. The case echoes a British juror's recent attempt to set up a Facebook poll to decide whether or not she should find the defendant in a child abduction and sexual assault case guilty. She was booted off when court officials in Burnley, northwestern England, were tipped off about the survey. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 07:07:17 -0500 From: JULES SOBRIAN Subject: Kingmakers > That tradition is now being reversed. If we want to continue in the > evolution of liberty we will at some point have to have another > revolution. Let us not forget that each major step in the evolution of > liberty involved holding a sword to the king's neck in one way or > another. No king ever gave liberty out of the goodness of his heart. > We should not be fooled into thinking that our democracy is any better > than the conspiracies of a king. With a king you know who the adversary > is. In a democracy such as ours we never get to see the kingmakers. It sure is nice that somebody has found the balls to say this. Jules ------------------------------ Date: Sat, December 31, 2011 7:56 am From: 10x@telus.net Subject: Re: National Post: Scrap the gun registry, and its records The same points can be made about licensing. Specifically gun owner licensing gives the national police force the right to keep track of law abiding citizens - that is wrong on many levels. If one does an internet search on the Bureau of Canadian Archivists one will find that no "Bureau" exists. Is that poor reporting on the part of the media - (Reporters seldom get it right) or is it deliberate misdirection Claude Roberto does exist and works for the Government of Alberta in the Provincial Archives. http://alberta.ca/albertaFiles/includes/directorysearch/goaBrowse.cfm?txtSearch=&Ministry=CCS&LevelID=6292&userid=29613 It is odd that an employee of the Alberta government seems to believe that Parliament has no powers to amend laws created by previous Parliaments.. At 11:00 PM 30/12/2011 -0700, Dennis & Hazel Young wrote: >NATIONAL POST - FULL COMMENT -DECEMBER 30, 2011 - 5:33 PM ET >National Post Editorial Board: Scrap the gun registry, and its records >http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/12/30/national-post-editorial-board-scrap-the-gun-registry-and-its-records/ > >In a recent letter to the editor of the Edmonton Journal - a fellow >Postmedia paper - Claude Roberto, the secretary general of the , objected to plans by the Tory government to destroy the >information collected on individual gun owners by the federal long-gun >registry when the registry is closed next year. Mr. Roberto quoted from the >Library and Archives of Canada Act and cited the United Nations' Declaration >on Archives to justify his contention that the records belong to "society" >and not to the government, so it is not up to the government to decide >whether they should be destroyed quickly.We disagree. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 11:03:50 -0500 From: "mred" Subject: Re: USA TODAY POLL: Does the Second Amendment give individuals ... In response I need to say that ALL life has the right to self-defense, using what ever means at their disposal . Even a mouse when cornered will fight back. And bacteria/virii are always mutating as a self-defense measure. It is the RIGHT to life that is GOD given and cannot be taken by any government. ed/on - ----- Original Message ----- From: "M.J. Ackermann, MD" Subject: Re: USA TODAY POLL: Does the Second Amendment give individuals ... > ... the right to bear arms? > > Of course not. > > Their right to bear arms springs forth from their rights to life and to > the defense of life. These rights are inherent in the human condition. > > The 2nd Amendment simply recognizes these rights. It does not grant > them. Because rights arise from being human, no government or law ever > grants rights, nor can they repeal them. They can only recognize or > refuse to recognize them. > > Confusion in this regard has caused unnecessary grief for far to long. > > -- > 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: Sat, December 31, 2011 11:41 am From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: LETTER: Hypocrite Conservatives Making Easy To own Guns by Ward M Eagen THE LINK - DECEMBER 31, 2011 LETTER: Hypocrite Conservatives Making Easy To own Guns While Talking Tough On Crime http://thelinkpaper.ca/?p=12910 The reasons that we have the gun registry, to help take innocents out of harm's way. One of the reasons that all Health and Safety Organizations in Canada, the Canadian Chiefs of Police, and the RCMP, all said that the gun registry saves lives. With the passing of bill C-19 this will no longer be possible. And Bill C-19 is a leap backward: verifying a firearm purchaser's license becomes voluntary, there are no provisions to reinstate the requirement for business to keep records of firearm sales, and a tool widely used by police to remove guns from dangerous or suicidal people is removed. Canada will become an unrestrained free market for guns, just like the United States. Dear Editor: RE: Conservatives' Crime Agenda Doesn't Include Safeguards For Guns (LINK, Dec. 24, 2011) http://thelinkpaper.ca/?p=12778 One thing is very clear. If Derek Jensen had been reported to police for the escalating verbal abuse and physical violence to Tabatha Stepple, particularly after. "He put his fist through their window, punched a huge dent in the rear driver's side of his car, told her he killed her dog. Last weekend, after he broke their window, he slammed her against the wall in his room." [i], his 'babies', his guns, would have been taken away and just perhaps, four families would be celebrating Christmas this year instead of mourning their children. A total of 4,612 registered firearms were removed from the possession of individuals whose licenses were revoked due to public safety concerns between October 31, 2008 and January 4, 2011 as reported by the Public Safety Minister Vic Toews in response to a question in the House of Commons. [ii] The reasons for revocation due to public safety concerns included: reported prohibition or court order, 3,887; reported potential risk to others, 547; reported potential risk to self, 399; reported unsafe firearms use and storage, 224; reported violence, 198; reported drug offences, 15; and providing false information, 3. This is one of the reasons that we have the gun registry, to help take innocents out of harm's way. One of the reasons that all Health and Safety Organizations in Canada, the Canadian Chiefs of Police, and the RCMP, all said that the gun registry saves lives. With the passing of bill C-19 this will no longer be possible. And Bill C-19 is a leap backward: verifying a firearm purchaser's license becomes voluntary, there are no provisions to reinstate the requirement for business to keep records of firearm sales, and a tool widely used by police to remove guns from dangerous or suicidal people is removed. Canada will become an unrestrained free market for guns, just like the United States. [iii] Perhaps it should be more than just Quebec making trouble over the destruction of the long-gun registry. Ward M Eagen Toronto, Ontario ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V14 #865 *********************************** 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".)