From: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V15 #167 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Sender: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Errors-To: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Precedence: normal Cdn-Firearms Digest Thursday, July 5 2012 Volume 15 : Number 167 In this issue: Fwd: Fwd: Fw: Something to consider RE: Bullying Re: re- News Flash! Digest V15 #165 Re: "Belgistan" Digest V15 #166 Canadians not up to speed on origins of Confederation The separation of Quebec is no simple matter UNSG Ban Ki-moon's Remarks to the Conference on the Arms Trade ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 16:27:45 -0700 From: Todd Birch Subject: Fwd: Fwd: Fw: Something to consider > I challenge you to read this and NOT have the will to pass it on. > No one has been able to explain to me why young men and women > serve in the U.S. or Canadian Military for 20 years, risking > their lives protecting freedom, and only get 50% of their pay on > retirement. Politicians hold their political positions in > the safe confines of the capital, protected by these same men > and women, and receive full-pay retirement after serving one > term (7 years in Canada, not necessarily consecutive). > It just does not make any sense. > If each person who receives this will forward it on to 20 > people, in three days, most people in The United States of > America and Canada will have the message. This is one proposal > that really should be passed around. > > Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: > "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the > United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or > Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to > the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally > to the citizens of the United States ..." The same should be > passed in Canada . > > I passed it on, will you? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 22:22:00 -0500 From: george adair Subject: RE: Bullying Dr. Mike: I am glad to see you taught your daughter the way my father taught me. In grade school I was a skinny, short on energy kid and was bullied by two boys in one family. My dad taught me some very important pointers and rules which I still try to live today and taught my children. Rule one was Never start a fight unless it was for a very good reason, and in my fathers eyes it darn well better be a good reason. There was really no rule two, however he did instill in me and my brothers and sisters that if someone wanted to pick a fight with us then we were going to be prepared to finish it standing up if we could. In this he taught us the vulnerable parts of the body to incapacitate, hurt if needed, knock em down hard as a final resort. I ended up facing down both boys by myself one afternoon and would have been in a fight for my health if not for a sister and a baseball bat to hold one off. Took on the biggest first, and finished bloodied but standing. Faced off the other brother and h backed down and left us alone. I have maintained since then that it is grossly unfair to not be taught how to defend yourself but also even more unfair not to teach your family how to do the same. Good for you Mike. Yours in Liberty and Freedom George Adair No one ever said our freedoms would come cheap. Some we must be prepared to fight for, some we must be prepared to die for. Take freedom for granted once and it could be gone forever. -1776 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 22:27:21 -0600 From: Larry James Fillo Subject: Re: re- News Flash! Digest V15 #165 On 4-Jul-12, at 6:18 PM, Cdn-Firearms Digest wrote: > Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 18:41:47 -0700 > From: Todd Birch > Subject: News Flash! > > Over the July 1st long weekend at the Hefley Creek range facility near > Kamloops, BC, 125 Canadian and American men, women and kids fired > off an > estimated 36,250 rounds of rifle, pistol and shotgun ammo over three > days - and not one person was injured in any way! The occasion was the > 20th anniversary of the Palmer's Gulch Cowboy Action Shoot, one of > several major shooting events taking place this summer across the > country. > > No one was killed or injured, no crimes were committed, all guns and > shooters were legal and licenced'; registered where required. All > paperwork was in order - ATTs, registration docs, PALs and all guns > and > ammo were transported in accordance with law; unloaded and trigger > locks > applied. The sad part is that all those ordinary, decent, law abiding Canadians would have done the exact same thing twenty years ago, before C-17/C-68. However, now they have to compromise their Charter Rights and agree to be subject to capricious, arbitrary measures. If the police had raided and rounded up these participants the media would have listed it as just another gangsta rendez-vous. Thus this aspect of Canadian heritage is now divided off from the average Canadian by an Iron Curtain of Criminal Code and Regulations. I read an Vancouver crime writer's column today. She remarked on knowing and having interviewed one of the recent gangsters who was just assassinated outside a Starbucks. How many Vancouver media types knowing some hunters or target shooters, these days? Are would admit to it? > > Yet, not one word in the media. But let some unlicenced miscreant with > an illegal, unregistered gun fire a few rounds in 'Trawna The Good' or > the shooting gallery known as Vancouver and it gets national coverage. For the mainstream media (MSM), if it bleeds, it leads. For the shooting sports to receive positive, unfiltered publicity, likely you'd have to arrange for it to be shown on local community cable TV channels, and likely have to assist in doing the video yourself. > > It's enough to make you think that the media are showing their PC > anti-gun bias ....... Yes, they have one, after twenty years of doing just that the younger ones now running the media likely have no knowledge of firearms and related sports outside of their crime coverage. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 22:44:09 -0600 From: Larry James Fillo Subject: Re: "Belgistan" Digest V15 #166 On 4-Jul-12, at 7:08 PM, Cdn-Firearms Digest wrote: > Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 08:02:45 -0700 > From: Todd Birch > Subject: Fwd: Belgistan > > "This will make your blood run cold. Pay close attention to > what he > says about someone who claims they are a Muslim and also claims > they > are democratic (part of a democracy). My heart breaks for Europe > right now." > Welcome to Belgistan!!!! > *This sure makes it hard to remain open minded and > inclusive..........* > > This occurred in February 2012. > > *You better believe there are thousands that feel the same as the > Muslim Group in the Video in the USA and Canada.* > > VIDEO > http://www.cbn.com/media/player/index.aspx?s/mp4/DHU227v2_WS > Yes, it's a scary scene in Europe. They are wakening up but time is running short, within 30 years half of Europe's youth will be Muslim. They know it. It's part of the Muslim Brotherhood's strategy. Averting a full fledged civil war is no better than a 50/50 chance. It's called the "Third Jihad" or "Stealth Jihad". In a generation, a call for North America to again send it's youth in uniform to defend Europe against fascism will be heard, almost 100 years after the last time. Some like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, are already refugees from Islamism and had to flee Europe. Also, Jewish refugees from Europe are showing up in North America and Israel fleeing Scandinavia, and France. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 08:39:27 -0600 From: "Joe Gingrich" Subject: Canadians not up to speed on origins of Confederation http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/todays-paper/Canadians+speed+origins+Confederation/6885930/story.html Canadians not up to speed on origins of Confederation By Randy Boswell, Postmedia News July 5, 2012 As the country basks in the patriotic afterglow of Canada Day, a new poll that looks ahead to an upcoming July 1 mega-bash - the 150th anniversary of Confederation in 2017 - shows most citizens have an extremely shaky understanding of the country's birth in 1867. Less than half of the population - 48 per cent - claims to have "a good knowledge of the history of Confederation," according to a survey commissioned by the Montreal-based Association for Canadian Studies. And a mere 10 per cent of the poll's 1,708 respondents said they "strongly agree" (along with 38 per cent who "somewhat agree") that they have a solid grasp of the events surrounding the 19th-century union of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and the Province of Canada, which split into Ontario and Quebec on July 1, 1867 - the formal launch of the sea-to-sea-tosea nation that exists today. The question of Canadians' knowledge of the deal struck by the Fathers of Confederation in the 1860s is certain to come to the fore in the years leading up to the country's sesquicentennial, which has already been the focus of heritage committee hearings on Parliament Hill. The federal Conservative government, which has made the celebration of key national anniversaries a major part of its agenda, is framing the succession of milestone moments in the coming years - including the extensive and ongoing commemorations marking the bicentennial of the War of 1812 - as steps on a path toward the big birthday blowout in 2017. The ACS survey, carried out by the firm Leger Marketing during the week of June 23, revealed that 63 per cent of Canadians - including 23 per cent who "strongly agree" - believe "it is vital to know the 1867 Confederation agreements to understand issues around Canada's identity." Yet respondents were not generally confident about their own knowledge of Confederation, and were considerably less confident that other Canadians knew much about the nation-building bargain orchestrated largely by Sir John A. Macdonald, who became Canada's first prime minister on July 1, 1867. Only 22 per cent of those surveyed said Canadians as a whole have a good understanding of Confederation. Just three per cent said they "strongly" believe Canadians are knowledgeable about the 1867 pact. "The challenge," ACS executive director Jack Jedwab said, "is that there's a high level of acknowledgment that we're not well informed about that chapter in our history." But the good news, he added, is that "we've got five years to build people's knowledge of Confederation." Previous ACS surveys, Jedwab noted, have indicated that Canadians recognize Confederation as the seminal event in the life of the country. In November 2010, for example, Confederation ranked No. 1 in an ACS-commissioned poll in which Canadians were asked to identify the most important events in the nation's history. In that survey, 44 per cent of Canadians called the foundational 1867 agreement the single most significant moment from the nation's past. The adoption of the public health system in the 1960s was ranked No. 2, with 24 per cent support, followed by the 1982 patriation of the Constitution and associated adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (13 per cent) and Canada's participation in the wars of the 20th century (10 per cent). The new poll suggests Canadians are generally fuzzy about what prompted the Fathers of Confederation to bring together the colonies of British North America into a new country. Asked to choose the most important from among six options offered as potential causes of Confederation, nearly half of those surveyed - 46 per cent - declined to give any answer at all. Among those willing to venture an opinion, the cause most commonly cited - by 18 per cent of those surveyed - was the threat of takeover by the United States. Between six and eight per cent of respondents chose one of the other five options as the main impetus for Confederation: Britain's desire to end financial support for its North American colonies, to secure co-operation to build a transcontinental railway, the desire of the "United Canadas" to split into the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, the promotion of trade between the new provinces, and to create a firm geographical base for expanding westward across the Prairies and the old Northwest. Jedwab said the reluctance of nearly half of all Canadians "to even hazard a guess" about the origins of Confederation should serve as a wake-up call to those planning the upcoming 150th anniversary commemorations. "This suggests that the population's relatively low assessment of Canadians knowledge of their founding event may indeed be quite accurate," he said. "If we're going to commemorate this event in a big way - as I think we should - we should make sure we have knowledge about what it is we're commemorating," Jedwab added. "There should be a big push on for enhancing that knowledge." The survey, conducted via web panel, is deemed to have a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 08:48:32 -0600 From: "Joe Gingrich" Subject: The separation of Quebec is no simple matter http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/separation+Quebec+simple+matter/6885889/story.html The separation of Quebec is no simple matter By Andrew Coyne, The StarPhoenix July 5, 2012 Just in time to celebrate the national holiday a Postmedia/Ipsos Reid poll arrives with news that one in two Canadians couldn't care less if the country breaks apart. I don't actually think that's true. When 47 per cent of Canadians - 49 per cent of those outside Quebec - tell the pollster they "don't really care" if Quebec separates, I think they are speaking in code. I think what they mean is they are unwilling to rush about making burnt offerings to the province in hopes of dissuading it. Still, it was enough to feed an emerging media narrative: the Parti Quebecois are about to take power, another referendum is inevitable, and the country is not "ready." Worse, with both the federal and provincial governments in bad odour in the province, there is no one to "speak for Canada," no one to lead the traditional chorus of "please forgive us, we'll try to do better." The country is "sleepwalking into a perfect storm", the political scientist Donald Savoie writes, hetero-metaphorically. Others are more laconic. "A turning point may have been reached that makes the uncoupling inevitable," writes the National Post's John Ivison. "It's possible the next referendum battle won't be in Quebec (but) in English Canada," writes my Postmedia colleague Michael Den Tandt, who interprets the poll's message as "don't let the door hit you on the way out." Which is no bad thing, in game theory terms: it might deter soft-nationalist Quebecers from voting Yes strategically, in hopes of a "better deal." But what if that 49 per cent really mean it? That would indeed be worrying. At a minimum, it would suggest they had not thought this through. The separation of Quebec would not be the neat excision of a troublesome appendage so many seem to think it would be. Nor would it be merely to yield control over a substantial part of Canadian territory. It would be the end of Canada. Such a fundamental breach in the confederation bargain would inevitably trigger a demand to renegotiate the terms of association among the shards that remained, with no assurance of success. Hey Alberta, how do you feel about Ontario having half the seats in Parliament? Whatever emerged from that, it would not be the country we have now. Fortunately, such a scenario is impossible. Not unlikely: impossible. Even if the PQ were to win the election, and even if it could persuade Quebecers to overcome their visceral aversion to another referendum, and even if it were to ask a clear question and to win a clear majority, the next stop would be nowhere. Whatever conditions the Clarity Act may impose on the federal government's participation in negotiations on secession, the real obstacle is more profound. The federal government has no legal authority to negotiate any such thing. Nor does anyone: there is no duly constituted representative of "the rest of Canada," nor any means of duly constituting one. Suppose there were. Even to enter into negotiations on such an extraordinary matter as the dissolution of the federation would require - legally, arguably; politically, certainly - a referendum of the rest of Canada, to mirror the one in Quebec. The negotiations, if begun, would have to reach agreement on a truly dizzying number of issues, all of them zero-sum, with demands for input at every stage from multiple parties. Even if these could be sorted out, the result would require ratification in every province, very likely by referendum. All this, remember, while a simultaneous set of negotiations was under way on the shape of what remained. Of course, negotiations on the terms of secession, to be meaningful, imply that either side can walk away from the table if its demands are not met. But if Quebec could secede without negotiation, why would it negotiate? And if "Canada" did not have to consent to its own demise, why would it? So the more likely scenario is a speedy breakdown in negotiations, followed by a unilateral declaration of independence (UDI), much as Jacques Parizeau has told us he had planned in 1995. But a UDI could not possibly succeed - not with the sort of 50 per cent-plus margin that is the outer limits of separatist fantasy. You think Greece would be plunged into chaos over a relatively simple matter like scrapping the euro? Try to imagine the madness that would follow a UDI, that is a deliberate break with the rule of law: capital flight, bank failures, the courts clogged with federalists petitioning for their rights, the Cree taking down hydro towers, and organized crime taking advantage of the situation in whatever ways it could. No country would recognize such a regime - not with Canada contesting its legitimacy, along with half of Quebec. Nor is there any evidence that Quebecers are prepared to embark upon such adventures. Quebec is a modern, bourgeois, law-abiding, mortgageholding society. It is not the cradle of revolutions. So no, I am not worried about "who will speak for Canada." The next referendum, if it comes, will be unlike any previous. As the feds are legally barred from accepting the result of any but a clear question, they can scarcely participate in a referendum that did not ask one. But the PQ will never ask such a question, if no other reason than because Ottawa insists it must. We are far more likely, then, to see some sort of preposterous charade along the lines of "do you agree that Quebec should assume such and such powers" - no more illegitimate than previous questions, but without the sanction of precedent. In which event the proper response of federal leaders is to ignore it. It always was. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 13:24:54 -0600 (CST) From: owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca (Majordomo) Subject: UNSG Ban Ki-moon's Remarks to the Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, July 3, 2012 From: "Dennis R. Young" Date: Thu, July 5, 2012 8:52 am To: "Firearms Digest" Sender: owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca Precedence: normal Reply-To: cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca Remarks to the Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty - Ban Ki-moon - July 04, 2012 UNSG Ban Ki-moon's Remarks to the Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, July 3, 2012 http://www.monitor.upeace.org/innerpg.cfm?id_article=921 Ambassador Moritán, I would like to express my sincere congratulations once again on your election. Ambassador Moritán and I have been working very closely for a long time. I have known him in his various capacities in the Argentinian Government. Thus I know him very well – his vision, his commitment and his leadership. I am confident that, under his very wise leadership, he will be able to lead this conference toward a great success. I would like, again, to thank you for your patience. In this type of very important conference [with] multilateral organizations, it is not uncommon that Member States have some different views on certain issues. I only hope that you will exercise your wisdom and common vision and commitment to work for the common humanity. The whole international community is watching how this conference will come out at the end of this month-long discussion, on July 27th. I sincerely hope that, Mr. President, you will exercise your leadership and, with the full cooperation and sense of flexibility and common sense, to agree to a legally binding arms trade treaty at the end of this. This is my earnest hope and appeal to all delegations here who have come [from far] and wide, from all different parts of the world. I also want to convey my special thanks to the many civil society organizations here today for your vigorous support for an Arms Trade Treaty. You have helped capture the imagination and energy of millions. Everyone in this room is making history. I am very encouraged and impressed by such fully packed delegations. This is the largest conference room we can provide at this time, except the General Assembly Hall. Again I really thank you for your engagement – this is a very positive engagement For the first time, Member States are gathering at the United Nations to negotiate a treaty regulating the international conventional arms trade. It is important. It is impressive. And it is long overdue. We have made some progress on weapons of mass destruction issues over the years. But the international community has not kept pace on conventional arms. Yes, nuclear issues always capture headlines. But conventional arms are killing people everyday without much attention. We have made headway in tackling the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons and in enhancing transparency in conventional armaments. We have the Programme of Action on Small Arms and the Firearms Protocol. We have an instrument to facilitate cooperation in tracking illicit small arms and light weapons. And we also have the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms. Yet we do not have a multilateral treaty of global scope dealing with conventional arms. This is a disgrace. Poorly regulated international arms transfers are fuelling civil conflicts, destabilizing regions, and empowering terrorists and criminal networks. Addressing the threat of conventional weapons should not be an unconventional act by the international community. Together, we must act. The world is over-armed and peace is under-funded. Military spending is on the rise. Today, it is well above US $1 trillion a year. Let us look at Africa alone. Between 1990 and 2005, twenty-three African countries lost an estimated US $284 billion as a result of armed conflicts, fuelled by transfers of ammunition and arms – 95 per cent of which came from outside Africa. And globally, sixty years of United Nations peacekeeping operations have cost less than six weeks of current military spending. Everyday, we at the United Nations see the human toll of an absence of regulations or lax controls on the arms trade. We see it in the suffering of civilian populations trapped by armed conflict or pervasive crime. We see it in the killing and wounding of civilians – including children, the most vulnerable of all. We see it in the massive displacement of people within and across borders. We see it through grave violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law. Poorly regulated trade in weaponry is a major obstacle to everything we do. For example, the delivery of emergency assistance is often disrupted by armed threats and attacks against United Nations staff and other humanitarian organizations. In the last decade, nearly 800 humanitarian workers were killed in armed attacks. An agreed set of standards for arms exports, along with strict national legislation, can help begin to change all of that. But it will do even more. It will improve our ability to deliver across the board: From promoting social and economic development to supporting peacekeeping and peacebuilding; from monitoring sanctions and arms embargoes to protecting children and civilians; from promoting women’s empowerment to fostering the rule of law. Let us face facts. The task before you is extremely complex. There is a daunting array of challenges. The global arms trade touches on core national interests. There are legitimate concerns and diverse perspectives at play. You have difficult questions to tackle. For example, you will need to agree on robust criteria that would help lessen the risk that transferred weapons are used to commit violations of international humanitarian law or human rights. You will also need to define the scope of the Treaty to cover a comprehensive array of weapons and activities and that leaves no room for loopholes. Our common goal is clear: a robust and legally binding Arms Trade Treaty that will have a real impact on the lives of those millions of people suffering from the consequences of armed conflict, repression and armed violence. It is ambitious – but I believe it is achievable. It will take flexibility, good faith and the best from all of us. But we must aim for nothing less. We owe it to all the innocent civilians who have fallen victim to armed conflict and violence … to all the children deprived of a better future … to all those risking their lives to build peace and make this a better world. For them and for our common future – let us make the most of this historic moment. I count on your leadership and commitment. Ban Ki-moon is Secretary General of the United Nations General Assembly. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V15 #167 *********************************** 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".)