From: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V15 #203 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 Wednesday, August 1 2012 Volume 15 : Number 203 In this issue: Letter: Time to ban handguns By Emile Therien The Future of Fishing and Hunting in Eastern Ontario "The world’s first 3D-printed gun Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V15 #202 Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V15 #202 Re: "Is Mitt being neoconned into war" Digest V15 #202 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, July 31, 2012 1:36 pm From: "Dennis R. Young" Subject: Letter: Time to ban handguns By Emile Therien Ottawa Citizen July 28, 2012 Letter: Time to ban handguns By Emile Therien http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Letter+Time+handguns/7003940/story.html The recent shooting sprees in Toronto that resulted in the loss of life and numerous injuries has led to a call - by some politicians, public health officials, safety advocates - for an outright ban on the private ownership of handguns. The message is loud and clear. Canadians want an outright ban. On Sept. 23, 1992, the rector of Concordia University in Montreal launched a national campaign calling for an outright ban on the private ownership of handguns in Canada. On Aug. 24 of that year, a professor at that university shot five employees, four of them fatally. He had obtained three legally registered handguns a few days prior to that tragedy. That handgun-ban campaign attracted unprecedented backing from individuals and organizations with important interests and constituencies, including the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Po-lice, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Association of Colleges and Universities, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the Canadian Medical Association. etc. Within a year, 160,000 signatures had been collected. The petition was addressed to the Parliament of Canada. The government of the day tabled a response to that petition in the House of Commons on April 26, 1994. The response, unfortunately, did not include a ban. This petition should be resurrected by concerned MPs in the House of Commons, especially those from the GTA, as a starting point and as a message to Parliament that Canadians want these instruments of death, injury, and violence banned from ownership by private citizens. All Canadians concerned with gun violence deserve this ban. Gun-related deaths and injuries are linked to a complex set of factors, including the culture of violence. Strict gun control, predicated on a commitment to public health and safety as well as the detection and deterrence of criminal activity, is a critical part of the solution. Education to reduce the primary demand is also fundamental. Emile Therien, Ottawa Public health and safety advocate ------------------------------ Date: Tue, July 31, 2012 2:38 pm From: "Dennis R. Young" Subject: The Future of Fishing and Hunting in Eastern Ontario MEDIA RELEASE - JULY 31, 2012 Ontario Minister of Natural Resources to Discuss Future of Fishing and Hunting in Eastern Ontario Oshawa Ontario--The Outdoor Journal Radio Program host Angelo Viola, confirmed today, that Ontario Minister of Natural Resources the Honorable Michael Gravelle, will be a featured guest on the popular fishing, hunting and outdoor recreation program at 8:30 am EST on Saturday August 4th. The Outdoor Journal Radio program airs live on Rogers Sportsnet the FAN 590 in Toronto, each Saturday from 8-10 am including pod cast at www.fishncanada.com/content/view/135/54/ Minister Gravelle will discuss the Algonquin Land Claim and the Agreement in Principle (AIP) which will form the basis for a future treaty. The AIP will have impacts on residents, tourist operators, provincial parks and the outdoor recreation community across Eastern Ontario. The AIP will include the transfer of Crown lands, financial settlement, and details of Algonquin First Nation rights to harvest fish and game. The AIP will also determine the future uses of provincial parks, including Algonquin Provincial Park. The Algonquin Land Claim affects an area of 36,000 sq kms (14,000 sq miles) in Eastern Ontario, and the 1.4 million residents within the area of the land claim. The land claim area extends from North Bay to Hawkesbury following the Ottawa River, and westerly to Bancroft and near to Huntsville. The claim includes about 85% of the area of Algonquin Park, and includes the City of Ottawa. Recreational hunting and fishing are big business in Eastern Ontario and generate over $2.5 billion of economic activity in Ontario. Fishing alone, generates about $700 million in annual business and supports over 8000 jobs within the claim area. Algonquin Provincial Park and other provincial parks within the claim area attract over 1.7 million visitors each year. Representatives of Canada, Ontario and the Algonquins of Ontario have been meeting on the land claim for over 20 years. Ontario recently began consultation on fish and wildlife harvesting with some members of the Committee of External Advisors (CEA). The CEA was established by the Government of Ontario in 1997 and includes groups representing fishing, hunting, forestry, business, tourist establishments, cottage owners, environmentalists, and others. Media Contact John Winters, Producer Outdoor Journal Radio Program 705-789-6184 cell 705-783-5439 - ------------------------------------- Federation of Ontario Cottagers' Associations - July 23, 2012 Dear MP/MPP, The discussions around the Algonquin Land Claim, and negotiations toward an Agreement in Principle(AIP) by the three parties at the table is now coming to a critical phase, after a lack of progress on this file since the early 1990's. The Federation of Ontario Cottagers' Associations (FOCA) have been listed on the Committee of External Advisors on the land claim, and represent thousands of member families who live, work and recreate within the area of the land claim. It was our understanding this CEA was intended by the provincial and federal governments as a forum for 'public consultation'. In practical terms, this forum has been less about consultation and more about vague generalities about the state of negotiations. True public consultation has yet to occur and we ask that in advance of the next meeting with the negotiators on July 26, 2012, we receive a schedule laying out how the two levels of government intend to broaden the consultation process to include the general public who may be directly affected by the outcome of negotiations. We have been told that staff at the Ministry of Natural Resources, Aboriginal Affairs Negotiations Unit, has been working closely with affected municipalities on issues including land selection, taxation, development and others related issues. Others from MNR and MAA have been taking part in the 'consultation' meetings referred to above. To date, there has been a significant lack of fact-based discussion, and a lack of in-depth consultation on issues like land use planning, enforcement, fish and wildlife management plans, fair sharing, designated species, conflicting land claims and other issues. We strongly believe that a thorough review of the potential impact of the claim on private landowners, fish and wildlife populations, the future conservation of land and water resources and the impact on local businesses and the economy should be a priority for both governments. These factors, along with the potential impact on the lives of all residents, on tourism, forestry and cottage associations argues for broader public consultation and transparency as part of the process BEFORE an AIP is signed. Landowner rights, fish and wildlife, forests, and Crown lands may be subject to considerable change as a result of the claim. There may be considerable land given over to the Algonquin as part of the settlement. What land parcels are involved? How will the land in question be used? What rules for development will apply? What impact will the land selection have on local residents, on cottagers, on resource-based tourist operators? What impact will the land selection process and related future management have on local lakes and watersheds? The answers to these and other questions remain to be answered to our satisfaction. Suggestions by negotiators that the AIP will be general in nature, with twenty topical chapters, appear contrary to other AIPs across Canada which contain very specific levels of detail in them. It is important that the province and the federal government get it right the first time, not just for the sake of the Algonquin, but in the interests of the 1.4 million non-aboriginal residents within the land claim, who are depending on their local, provincial and federal governments to represent their interests. Our members are your constituents. Waterfront property owners make up a significant portion of local property tax base, and support millions of dollars of economic activity in this region. As stewards of the resources on and around their private property, this group will be affected by changes to tenure on area lakes and rivers and are due the opportunity to learn about the proposed settlement terms, and to provide input in advance of any settlement. It is critical that the views of local businesses, and the 1.4 million non-aboriginals who live within the claim area, are heard. It is important that the broader public has a vehicle through which they can ask questions, get answers and voice their concerns. It is important that an economic impact statement is prepared and that the rules for development are clear and it is important that we are given an understanding of how the results of the negotiations will impact on our valuable natural resources and access to those resources for all Ontarians. We will continue to press for a more comprehensive consultation process around the land claim process that will address the issues outlined above and that will provide the general public with an opportunity to be fully informed in advance of a landmark agreement that may significantly impact on their daily lives. On behalf of the residents and businesses in your municipality we respectfully ask that you join us in demanding that the public's voice be heard. Yours sincerely, Terry Rees, Executive Director Federation of Ontario Cottagers' Associations, Inc. #201 - 159 King St. Peterborough, ON K9J 2R8 www.foca.on.ca DISTRIBUTION LIST Hon Kathleen O. Wynne - Minister of Aboriginal Affairs kwynne.mpp@liberal.ola.org Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs Suite 400, 160 Bloor Street East Toronto, Ontario M7A 2E6 Tel 416-325-5110 Fax 416-314-2701 Hon John Duncan -, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development john.duncan@parl.gc.ca House of Commons Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6 Telephone: 613-992-2503 Fax: 613-996-3306 Hon Michael Gravelle - Minister of Natural Resources mgravelle.mpp@liberal.ola.org Ministry of Natural Resources Suite 6630, 6th Floor, Whitney Block 99 Wellesley Street West Toronto, Ontario M7A 1W3 Tel 416-314-2301 Fax 416-325-5316 Sarah Campbell - NDP Critic , Aboriginal Affairs scampbell-qp@ndp.on.ca Queen's Park Tel 416-325-2750 Fax 416-325-1645 Constituency Jerry J. Ouellette PC Critic - Aboriginal Affairs jerry.ouellette@pc.ola.org Queen's Park Room 322, Main Legislative Building, Queen's Park Toronto, Ontario M7A 1A8 Tel 416-325-2147 Fax 416-325-2169 John Yakabuski MPP, john.yakabuskico@pc.ola.org The Victoria Center, 84 Isabella Street Pembroke, Ontario K8A 5S5 Tel 613-735-6627 Fax 613-735-6692 cc Al Stewart, Co-Chair, Algonquin Land Claim, Committee of External Advisors astewart2@cogeco.ca Mel Campbell, Chair Eastern Ontario Warden's Caucus c/o lesley.todd@uclg.on.ca ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 21:42:18 -0400 From: Dan Haggarty Subject: "The world’s first 3D-printed gun "An American gunsmith has become the first person to construct and shoot a pistol partly made out of plastic, 3D-printed parts. The creator, user HaveBlue from the AR-15 forum, has reportedly fired 200 rounds with his part-plastic pistol without any sign of wear and tear." The entire story is available here: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/133514-the-worlds-first-3d-printed-gun This has to be troublesome for gun control advocates, especially since 3D printing using selective laser sintering can be done with metal powders. Dan ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 00:40:55 -0300 From: mikeack Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V15 #202 On 2012-07-31 23:21, Christopher wrote: > On 2012-07-30 11:09 AM, Joe Gingrich wrote: >> >http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/07/27/bc-monty-robinson-sentencing.html >> > >> >No jail time for disgraced ex-Mountie Monty Robinson >> > >> >House arrest for 1 month, followed by probation and curfew > This is probably the most disgusting sentence I've ever seen for a > killer cop. My article on this national disgrace of so-called "justice" > is online here: In a true representative democracy, the balance of power lies with the People. Therefore "taking the law into one's hands" is an every day occurrence, because it is the People who are the source of the law. This leads me to ponder if it would ever be justifiable, in a Heinleinesque way (read, "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress") for a group of ordinary citizens to decide that the legal system is no longer responsive to the will of the People, and to unilaterally form their own Court, to try and if convicted to sentence such a mollycoddled criminal as our RCMP member Monty Robinson. Such a Court could, for example, sentence him to injection of 5 cc of phenol into the spinal cord at the C7 level, thus rendering him quadraplegic for life, although with limited hand function to assist in daily activities. He would then be released from custody as he is no longer a danger to anyone. The advantage here is it is quick, cheap, and effective. The disadvantage is it may be considered cruel (although life long incarceration in a prison may well be more cruel) and it is permanent - leaving no way to reverse it in the event of a false conviction. One way to avoid such a risk of false conviction, would be for this People's Court to only hear cases of murderers, rapists, and pedophiles who have been found guilty in a regular court, and have received sentences that do little to protect their potential future victims. Such a court would of course have to meet secretly, and have excellent security. Even so it would be eventually discovered by the mainstream authorities and its members charged. But if it were truly grass roots, and truly just, and truly had public support, there would spontaneously arise dozens of them all over the country, without any central direction, operating on an opportunistic basis. This would make a great storyline for speculative fiction... - -- 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: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 00:44:03 -0300 From: mikeack Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V15 #202 On 2012-07-31 23:21, James wrote: > Since the man's son accessed the keys to the locked firearm > what details would defeat that? Would more locks, with more keys? > The child was most methodical and determined from what is described. Combination locks, or keeping the keys on his person at all times would have swayed the judge. Locking a cabinet, then leaving the keys unattended is as secure as writing your passwords down on post-it notes stuck to your monitor. - -- 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: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 00:54:22 -0600 From: Larry James Fillo Subject: Re: "Is Mitt being neoconned into war" Digest V15 #202 On 31-Jul-12, at 8:21 PM, Cdn-Firearms Digest wrote: > Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:20:32 -0600 > From: "Joe Gingrich" > Subject: Is Mitt being neoconned into war? > > http://www.humanevents.com/2012/07/31/pat-buchanan-is-mitt-being- > neoconned-into-war/ > > Is Mitt being neoconned into war? Interesting, this presume Mitt Romney will be elected President in November. No one previous has been as naive and inexperienced as the present holder of that office. Who due to that inexperience and naivite´ can only accept what he's offered by Democrat Old Guard. Hence something as stupid as "Fast and Furious", among others. > > By: Patrick J. Buchanan > 7/31/2012 > > Has Mitt Romney given Israel a blank check for war? > > So it seemed from the declaration in Jerusalem by his adviser Dan > Senor, who > all but flashed Israel a green light for war, signaling the > Israelis that, > if you go, Mitt's got your back: > > "If Israel has to take action on its own in order to stop Iran from > developing that capability, the governor would respect that decision." > > "No option would be excluded. Gov. Romney recognizes Israel's right to > defend itself and that it is right for America to stand with it." > > What does "stand with" Israel, if she launches a surprise attack on > Iran, > mean? Does it mean the United States will guide Israeli planes to > their > targets and provide bases on their return? Does it mean U.S. air > cover while > Israeli planes strike Iran? > > This would make America complicit in a pre-emptive strike and a > co-belligerent in the war to follow. Fair questions, but part of that high level analysis has more factors than Buchanan is raising here. > > What Senor said comes close to being a U.S. war guarantee for > Israel, while > leaving the decision as to when the war begins to them. > > This country has never done that before. Nations have had for ever mutual assistance self-defense pact with allies. Israel is the West's and America's only Middle-East ally that shares it's values and is a liberal democracy. It may be the West's most valuable ally in resisting the third jihad, too. Buchanan ignores 1400 years of history in the Middle-East and Europe. He pretends as though it isn't related to the present. For decades, the Islamist regimes are reliving the 7th to 14th Century to the extent they can get away with it. > And what does Senor mean by Israel's need to act "to stop Iran from > developing (the) capability" to acquire nuclear weapons? > > The collective decision of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies in 2007 - > that Iran > is not pursuing a nuclear weapon - reportedly reaffirmed in 2011 - > has never > been rescinded. Nor has the White House produced any hard evidence > Iran is > building a bomb. Iran's leadership have promised to destroy Israel, have funded and directed attacks against it via Hamas, Hezbollah and terrorist attacks from Bulgaria to Argentina over the last 30 years. There is no one in the Middle-East who doubts their intentions. > Moreover, Iran's known nuclear facilities are under inspection by the > International Atomic Energy Agency. Iran has bragged about it's thousands of uranium centrifuges and situated some of them in the deepest mountain enclaves they can access. The I.A.E.A. allowed there? Iran has also situated some of their nuclear development facilities around civilians to raise the collateral damage of an attack. It's not a secret it's their strategy. Protecting one's citizens from foreign attack is a Western concept, using them as human shields for terrorism is an Islamist strategy e.i. Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and now Iran. Why do that if there is only a peaceful design in progress? > Does the government know something the American people are not > being told? Depends if they are reading more than just Buchanan columns. > Undeniably, Iran, by enriching uranium to 3.5 percent, then up to 20 > percent, has a greater "capability" than five years ago of building a > nuclear weapon. But Japan, South Korea and Brazil also have that > capability - and none has decided to build a nuclear weapon. Neither Japan, South Korea, nor Brazil are terrorist states, funding, directing and executing attacks against other nations, and vowing repeatedly to wipe a fellow nation off the map. Nor are these other nations hanging teenage Christian/Bahai girls, homosexuals, apostates, and shooting protesters in the streets(see youtube), and bragging about it. Buchanan is being disingenuous, at best. Only those Americans, who don't follow international news would be naive´enough to believe this invalid comparison. > Gov. Romney did not go as far as Senor, but he, too, seems to be > saying that > not only is Iran's possession of a nuclear weapon a casus belli for > the > United States, even an Iran that is capable of building such a > weapon is > intolerable. Having the capacity to intimidate European members of NATO is part of the analysis, in the previous two jihads Islam conquered parts of Europe and threatened nearly all of it. That is why the present situation is called the The Third Jihad. It's not a secret, they promise it to their followers regularly. > "The regime in Iran is five years closer to developing nuclear weapons > capability," said Romney. "Preventing that outcome must be our highest > national security priority." > > Preventing what outcome is "our highest national security priority"? > > Stopping Iran from building a bomb? Or stopping Iran from being > able to > build a bomb years from now? > > The governor seems to be aligning himself with Israel's hawks who are > demanding that not only must Iran swear off nuclear weapons > forever, Iran > must cease all enrichment of uranium, and dismantle the facilities > at Natanz > and Fordow. Neither Israel, nor America, nor anyone else(except maybe rival Sunni Saudi leaders) want war with or even to attack Iran. It will be costly and ugly. It will only happen if and when they believe they have no other choice. For Israel striking before an enemy is quite ready to launch their attack is the safest and least costly option, historically. They've experienced both and it's one reason foreign intelligence is their forte´. Their economy is strong and growing and with the new discoveries of natural gas off their coast peace and prosperity is their first choice. But it can't be the only consideration, survival must be the priority. Small, means vulnerability in a way a larger country isn't. The Iranian regime will fall at some point, how many millions of Iranians will it take with it when that happens is an open question. If a preventive/delaying strike occurs, those countries might be drawn in deeper as a result. That is why it's the most complicated foreign policy situation being analyzed presently. > Romney's policy is zero enrichment, said Senor. Tehran must > understand that > "the alternative to zero enrichment is severe, and that's why the > threat of > military force has to be critical." > > This is tantamount to an ultimatum to Tehran: Either give up all > enrichment > of uranium and any right to enrich, or face war. > > Here we come to the heart of the issue, which may be impossible to > resolve > short of war. > > Unlike its neighbors Israel and Pakistan, Iran has signed the Nuclear > Non-Proliferation Treaty and has no nuclear weapons. The ayatollah > has said > they are immoral and Iran will not acquire them. Taqiyya and Kitman, lying and misleading the infidel, in the service of Islam is not only an permissible it is a duty in orthodox Islam. Anyone reading about the issue historically to the present is aware of this, or have not done his homework. Believing that foreign cultures think like Western ones is a mistake often attributed to American foreign policy over the years. Apart form weapons, there is no other reason for their nuclear program. It's way more expensive than natural gas for electricity, and 5 times as much lead time is required for construction. > But under the NPT, Iran claims the right to enrich uranium and seek > the > benefits of nuclear technology. And in that decision, the people of > Iran > stand behind their government. Benefits, none that wouldn't be much cheaper by purchasing radio- nuclides on the international market for medical and scientific uses. > Is denying Iran the right to enrich uranium a reason for America to > plunge > into its fifth war in that region in a generation? The "Right to enrich Uranium" which of the Natural Rights lists can that be found under. > That appears where we are headed. Reportedly, Obama's national > security > adviser recently briefed Bibi Netanyahu on the specifics of U.S. > contingency > plans to attack Iran. Obviously, a joint operation is one consideration, though does Iran think it has to worry as long as Obama is in office? > Has Congress been briefed? Have the American people been consulted? > Or are > we simply irrelevant? > > A decade ago, this country sent an army up to Baghdad to overthrow > Saddam > and strip Iraq of a vast arsenal of chemical and biological weapons > we were > told it had and was preparing to use. > > We were misled; we were deceived; we were lied to. Those were trucked to Syria and the Assad regime has just announced that it will use them if foreign military invade the country. It's a dual threat against the foreign soldiers(Western ones have kit to deal with that, other Arab militaries?) thus it's own citizens would be real victims. Collateral damage is a Western concern. The last time Assad's father put down an similar uprising he killed at least 30,000, twice as many as have died so far in the current civil war. > Before we outsource to Bibi and Ehud Barak the decision to take us > to war > with a country three times the size of Iraq, we need to know: > > Was the U.S. intelligence community wrong in 2007 and 2011? Is Iran > hell-bent on building nuclear weapons? If so, where are they > constructing > and testing these weapons? That isn't a secret, it brags about it. > Finally, if Iran is willing to permit intrusive inspections of its > actual > and suspected nuclear sites, but insists on its right to enrich > uranium, > should we go to war to deny them that right? Only if you truly believe that it prevents a far more horrendous situation later. None of the international analysis I've read is anything but seeing it as a dilemma of which is the lesser evil. > But if we are going to go to war again, this time with Iran, the > decision > should be made in America, according to our Constitution, not by > any other > country. If the price of oil drops appreciably the Muslim OPEC nations will be spending all their budgets trying to see their own populations don't overthrow them for economic reasons. The natural gas discoveries, now adding in the shale gas/fracting deposits are enormous, and give us decades or centuries to develop alternative fuels and the wealth to fund that research. Presently, many are working on how to concentrate natural gas until it's energy density is closer to gasoline and thus practical for transportation fuel. When that happens the price of oil will fall to be competitive. How far will that be? And when it will happen isn't predictable, at least not yet. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V15 #203 *********************************** 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".)