From: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V15 #436 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 owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Cdn-Firearms Digest Sunday, December 30 2012 Volume 15 : Number 436 In this issue: [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: From: Subject: [none] Subject: No Guns in School? by Larry Sand, retired teacher From: "Dennis R. Young" Date: Sun, December 30, 2012 10:37 am No Guns in School? Armed guards have long been the norm on California campuses. by Larry Sand, a retired teacher and president of the California Teachers Empowerment Network - 28 December 2012 http://www.city-journal.org/2012/cjc1228ls.html It was only natural that the mass murder of 26 children and staffers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, would bring out the best and worst of people's emotions. The frenzy of accusations and name-calling from educators, teachers' union bosses, reform leaders, policy wonks, gun lobbyists, and editorial writers has yet to subside. The reaction that attracted the most hostility, on the left and on the right, was National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre's call for an armed guard in every school "immediately," funded with federal tax dollars. The denunciations were instantaneous. Dennis Van Roekel, president of the National Education Association, and Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, issued a joint press release that flatly asserted: "Guns have no place in our schools. Period. We must do everything we can to reduce the possibility of any gunfire in schools, and concentrate on ways to keep all guns off school property and ensure the safety of children and school employees." Michelle Rhee, former chancellor of the Washington, D.C. public schools, now CEO of a school-reform group, also weighed in: "I have come to the conclusion that StudentsFirst must publicly oppose legislation that would bring firearms into schools, anywhere." Perhaps Rhee, who now lives in Sacramento with her husband, Mayor Kevin Johnson, is unaware that the Golden State allows schools to employ armed guards if they choose. A man with a gun and a badge might not be patrolling a school near Rhee's home, but he's in a school somewhere in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, San Diego, San Jose, San Bernardino, or Riverside. LaPierre may have thought he was proposing something radical, but the protection he recommends is already in place in many parts of California. When I was a middle school teacher in Los Angeles from 1994 until 2009, we had an armed cop on campus just about every day. My school was hardly unique. State law has long allowed for an armed presence on any school campus "as needed." The public has no problem with this. In a recent Gallup poll, when asked if increasing the police presence at schools would be effective in stopping mass shootings, 87 percent of respondents said that it would be "very" or "somewhat effective." And 64 percent agreed that having at least one official at every school carry a gun would be "very" or "somewhat effective." The idea of greater police presence in schools enjoys bipartisan support, with 55 percent of Republicans and 52 percent of Democrats saying an armed officer would be "very effective" at deterring or stopping another spree shooter. What clearly doesn't work is the policy of designating public schools-or any venue where large numbers of people congregate-as "gun-free zones." After last summer's slaughter at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, political scientist John Lott noted that the location wasn't the closest to the killer's apartment or the one with the largest audience. "Instead," Lott observed, "out of all the movie theaters within 20 minutes of his apartment showing the new Batman movie that night, it was the only one where guns were banned." In Colorado, individuals with permits can carry concealed handguns in most malls, movie theaters, and restaurants. But private businesses can determine whether permit holders can carry guns on their private property. Though ignored by most of the media, some mass school shootings have been stopped because an authority figure with access to a firearm intervened. In 1997, at Pearl High School in Mississippi, 16-year-old Luke Woodham shot nine students and staff, killing two, before Joel Myrick, the school's assistant principal, confronted and subdued him with a pistol he retrieved from his truck. In 2001, senior Jason Hoffman opened fire on the attendance office of Granite Hills High School in El Cajon, California. Hoffman wounded five people before being shot and incapacitated by an armed school cop. Even the shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado, horrible as they were, could have been even worse but for the intervention of Neil Gardner, an armed Jefferson County sheriff's deputy having lunch on campus at the time. Gardner exchanged fire with one of the shooters and summoned help, giving several students a chance to escape. An armed presence on campus is not the only solution to spree shootings, though, and LaPierre may be overreaching with his call for federal intervention. After all, if deep-blue California can let its schools have armed guards on campus, surely other state legislatures are capable of making similar judgments without a federal mandate. Policymakers also need to consider how best to identify, confine, and treat mentally ill people who may be prone to violence. The effects of violent video games on certain personality types are worth study as well. But while our contentious society wrangles with these thorny issues, children must be protected from those deranged human beings who kill for reasons that none of us really understands. An armed presence on school campuses is but one step in the right direction. ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] From: "Dennis R. Young" Date: Sun, December 30, 2012 10:44 am 7 People not allowed to purchase a gun in the U.S. legally BY: RADELL SMITH, CRIME AND COURTS - DECEMBER 29, 2012 http://www.examiner.com/article/7-people-not-allowed-to-purchase-a-gun-the-u-s-legally On Dec. 29, 2012, three law enforcement agencies came together to arrest a woman believed to have purchased a gun for a known felon before he shot at four volunteer firemen and killed two of them. According to CBS, Dawn Nguyen was the woman arrested in connection with the upstate firefighter killings investigation. New York State Police Senior Investigator James Newell says the Rochester woman faces a state charge of filing a falsified business record. Nguyen purchased the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle and the 12-gauge shotgun found at the scene of the fatal shooting of two volunteer firefighters in Webster, N.Y. in December according to police. Purchasing a gun for one of the following seven types of people is prohibited by law in the United States, and police contend that the former William Spengler, Jr. neighbor did so anyway. 7 People Not Allowed to Purchase a Gun in the U.S. legally . Someone under indictment or convicted of a felony (like William Spengler) . A fugitive from justice . Someone who abuses any controlled substances . Any person that has been adjudicated as suffering from mental health issues . An illegal alien, or an alien admitted under a non-immigrant visa . Someone dishonorably discharged from the Armed forces, or . Someone who has renounced his or her United States citizenship (like John McAfee) The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has the responsibility to investigate known gun violations, and as such they joined with the Webster Police Department and the NY State Police Department in identifying and tracing the owner of the weapons found at the firefighter killing scene in Webster. Persons charged and convicted of selling a gun to any of the seven people listed on the U.S.S.C. 922 (d) listing will face up to 10 years in prison. ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] From: "Joe Gingrich" Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 11:37:57 -0600 http://apnews.myway.com/article/20121230/DA3G50V00.html Obama wants gun violence measures passed in 2013 Dec 30, 9:32 AM (ET) By JIM KUHNHENN WASHINGTON (AP) - Recalling the shooting of 20 first graders as the worst day of his presidency, President Barack Obama on Sunday pledged to put his "full weight" behind a legislative package next year aimed at containing gun violence. In an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press," Obama voiced skepticism about proposals to place armed guards at schools in the aftermath of the Dec. 14 deadly assault at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. In his boldest terms yet, he vowed to rally the American people around an agenda to limit gun violence and said he still supports increased background checks and bans on assault weapons and high capacity bullet magazines. "It is not enough for us to say, 'This is too hard so we're not going to try,'" Obama said. "So what I intend to do is I will call all the stakeholders together. I will meet with Republicans. I will meet with Democrats. I will talk to anybody. "I think there are a vast majority of responsible gun owners out there who recognize that we can't have a situation in which somebody with severe psychological problems is able to get the kind of high capacity weapons that this individual in Newtown obtained and gun down our kids. And, yes, it's going to be hard." Obama's comments come as the schoolroom shooting has elevated the issue of gun violence to the forefront of public attention. Six adults also died at the school. Authorities say the shooter killed himself and his mother at their home. The slayings have prompted renewed calls for greater gun controls. The National Rifle Association has resisted those efforts vociferously, arguing instead that schools should have armed guards for protection. "I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools," Obama said. "And I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem." Obama said he intended to press the issue with the public. "Will there be resistance? Absolutely there will be resistance," he said. "The question then becomes whether we are actually shook up enough by what happened here that it does not just become another one of these routine episodes where it gets a lot of attention for a couple of weeks and then it drifts away. It certainly won't feel like that to me. This is something that - you know, that was the worst day of my presidency. And it's not something that I want to see repeated." Besides getting gun violence legislation passed next year, Obama also listed immigration as a top priority for 2013 as well as deficit reduction. A big deficit reduction deal with Republicans proved elusive this month and Obama is now hoping Senate Democratic and Republican leaders salvage a scaled back plan that avoids across the board tax increases for virtually all Americans. He issued a defense of former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who has been mentioned as one of the leading candidates for new secretary of defense. Hagel, who opposed President George W. Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq, has been criticized in conservative circles for not being a strong enough ally of Israel. Many liberals and gay activists also have banded against him for comments he made in 1998 about an openly gay nominee for an ambassadorship Obama, who briefly served with Hagel in the Senate, stressed that he had yet to make a decision on a secretary of defense but said called Hagel a "patriot." "He is somebody who has done extraordinary work both in the United States Senate," he said. "Somebody who served this country with valor in Vietnam. And is somebody who's currently serving on my intelligence advisory board and doing an outstanding job." He noted that Hagel had apologized for his 14-year-old remark. "And I think it's a testimony to what has been a positive change over the last decade in terms of people's attitudes about gays and lesbians serving our country," Obama said. ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] Subject: [Fwd: No Guns in School? by Larry Sand, retired teacher] From: decline@pteradon.tera-byte.com Date: Sun, December 30, 2012 12:52 pm The facts show that many schools already have armed protection. They are almost NEVER attacked if the killers know they are armed. In the cases where mass killings were stopped, such as the teacher who had to run to his truck and back with his firearm which stopped the killing, would undoubtedly have prevented some of the prior deaths had he had instant access to his firearm. Remember that the worst school mass killing was done in 1927 with explosives and a car. It is known as the "Bath School Killing." Proposals to ban semi auto firearms of which there are well over 150 million in Canada and the US, is nothing more than a gun grab by the "anti's." Several years ago when talk began about banning clips that held more than ten shells, we did a simple experiment. Three shooters with .22 rifles and three stop watches shot 50 rounds each. Two were semi-auto loading, one with a 50 shot clip, one with five ten shot clips, and one tubular fed lever action Winchester rifle. Each person shot the 50 shots as fast as they could pull the trigger. The 50 shot was the fastest. The ten shot clips were replaced until all 50 were shot. The 50 shot clip was emptied in 22 seconds. The person with the ten shot clips took exactly four seconds longer or 26 seconds. (click - empty clip falls out - chunk - new clip in. Less than one second to reload four times) The tubular magazine on the lever action actually took 7 seconds longer as it held 18 shells and so had to be reloaded twice. Reloading took some 2 1/2 second to accomplish using a thin tube that held up to 18 shells which were then slid into the magazine: pull, slide, replace and ready again (14 shells in the second tube.) Each new round had to be "levered" into the firing chamber. Not very much longer between shots than the semi-auto! Total 29 seconds for 50 shots. Later we tried a pump action tube fed rifle and the lever action. The pump action was actually two seconds faster. But that of course, depends on the shooter's skill. None of these three were "practiced" in fast reloading although the person with the 50 shot clip was a police officer and one time member of our club, but it shows how laymen would perform in a reload-shoot situation. Handguns that use a clip are even easier to reload with extra clips. Press a button, click-chunk-slide - about one second - so the myth of limiting clip size is just that, a myth. What difference if a killer has a 30 shot clip, or three ten shot clips. The difference is small fractions of a second. So "clip capacity" is nothing more than a red herring. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis Of course this argument is all hypothetical. The truth is that Israel who have armed guards and/or teachers at ALL schools from Kindergarten to University, have virtually stopped the epidemic of school children being killed in the close to 40 years since they passed the laws to protect their children. It matters not whether the protector has a semi-auto firearm or a single action firearm. Proficiency in shooting and willingness to save your charges (students) is the key to stopping a killer, not how many bullets you can fire off in a given amount of time. This is FACT, not hypothesis. There are no longer killer preferred "Gun Free Schools" in Israel. And the killings stopped. Don Klein ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: No Guns in School? by Larry Sand, retired teacher -------------------------------------------------------------------------- No Guns in School? Armed guards have long been the norm on California campuses. by Larry Sand, a retired teacher and president of the California Teachers Empowerment Network - 28 December 2012 http://www.city-journal.org/2012/cjc1228ls.html It was only natural that the mass murder of 26 children and staffers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, would bring out the best and worst of people's emotions. The frenzy of accusations and name-calling from educators, teachers' union bosses, reform leaders, policy wonks, gun lobbyists, and editorial writers has yet to subside. The reaction that attracted the most hostility, on the left and on the right, was National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre's call for an armed guard in every school "immediately," funded with federal tax dollars. The denunciations were instantaneous. Dennis Van Roekel, president of the National Education Association, and Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, issued a joint press release that flatly asserted: "Guns have no place in our schools. Period. We must do everything we can to reduce the possibility of any gunfire in schools, and concentrate on ways to keep all guns off school property and ensure the safety of children and school employees." Michelle Rhee, former chancellor of the Washington, D.C. public schools, now CEO of a school-reform group, also weighed in: "I have come to the conclusion that StudentsFirst must publicly oppose legislation that would bring firearms into schools, anywhere." Perhaps Rhee, who now lives in Sacramento with her husband, Mayor Kevin Johnson, is unaware that the Golden State allows schools to employ armed guards if they choose. A man with a gun and a badge might not be patrolling a school near Rhee's home, but he's in a school somewhere in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, San Diego, San Jose, San Bernardino, or Riverside. LaPierre may have thought he was proposing something radical, but the protection he recommends is already in place in many parts of California. When I was a middle school teacher in Los Angeles from 1994 until 2009, we had an armed cop on campus just about every day. My school was hardly unique. State law has long allowed for an armed presence on any school campus "as needed." The public has no problem with this. In a recent Gallup poll, when asked if increasing the police presence at schools would be effective in stopping mass shootings, 87 percent of respondents said that it would be "very" or "somewhat effective." And 64 percent agreed that having at least one official at every school carry a gun would be "very" or "somewhat effective." The idea of greater police presence in schools enjoys bipartisan support, with 55 percent of Republicans and 52 percent of Democrats saying an armed officer would be "very effective" at deterring or stopping another spree shooter. What clearly doesn't work is the policy of designating public schools-or any venue where large numbers of people congregate-as "gun-free zones." After last summer's slaughter at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, political scientist John Lott noted that the location wasn't the closest to the killer's apartment or the one with the largest audience. "Instead," Lott observed, "out of all the movie theaters within 20 minutes of his apartment showing the new Batman movie that night, it was the only one where guns were banned." In Colorado, individuals with permits can carry concealed handguns in most malls, movie theaters, and restaurants. But private businesses can determine whether permit holders can carry guns on their private property. Though ignored by most of the media, some mass school shootings have been stopped because an authority figure with access to a firearm intervened. In 1997, at Pearl High School in Mississippi, 16-year-old Luke Woodham shot nine students and staff, killing two, before Joel Myrick, the school's assistant principal, confronted and subdued him with a pistol he retrieved from his truck. In 2001, senior Jason Hoffman opened fire on the attendance office of Granite Hills High School in El Cajon, California. Hoffman wounded five people before being shot and incapacitated by an armed school cop. Even the shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado, horrible as they were, could have been even worse but for the intervention of Neil Gardner, an armed Jefferson County sheriff's deputy having lunch on campus at the time. Gardner exchanged fire with one of the shooters and summoned help, giving several students a chance to escape. [He also prevented the killers from setting off bombs they would have detonated, preventing a far greater tragedy.] An armed presence on campus is not the only solution to spree shootings, though, and LaPierre may be overreaching with his call for federal intervention. After all, if deep-blue California can let its schools have armed guards on campus, surely other state legislatures are capable of making similar judgments without a federal mandate. Policymakers also need to consider how best to identify, confine, and treat mentally ill people who may be prone to violence. The effects of violent video games on certain personality types are worth study as well. But while our contentious society wrangles with these thorny issues, children must be protected from those deranged human beings who kill for reasons that none of us really understands. An armed presence on school campuses is but one step in the right direction. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: it is already in effect in many schools all across the US. It may surprise to know that TORONTO also has armed presence at many schools. IN CANADA! And the school where hypocrites send their children in Washington has no less than 11 armed guards, and several Secret Service agents. One has to assume that these are "good guys with guns." We must hope that they aren't "bad guys." ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] From: "Joe Gingrich" Subject: The next convention Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 14:33:39 -0600 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/25/gingrich-attacks-on-obama-resurrect-saul-alinsky/ When the tear gas evaporated, students and radicals approached (Saul) Alinsky and asked whether they shouldn't now organize in more militant forms, "the system" having failed them. "Do one of three things," Alinsky advised them. "One, go find a wailing wall and feel sorry for yourselves. Two, go psycho and start bombing - but this will only swing people to the right. Three, learn a lesson. Go home, organize, build power and at the next convention, you be the delegates." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "At the next convention, you be the delegates." Attend the Conservative Party Convention in Calgary in June 2013 and demonstrate with the Coalition to Implement Conservative Party Policy,* specifically, the current Firearms Policy to respect "the rights of law-abiding Canadians to own and use firearms responsibly." Conservative Party Convention, Calgary, June 27-29, 2013. Tuesday, November 06, 2012 9:33 AM Conservative Quarterly - Volume 1 Tuesday, November 06, 2012 9:33 AM A MESSAGE FROM JOHN WALSH PRESIDENT OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY'S NATIONAL COUNCIL Fellow Party members, It is hard to believe over a year has passed since Prime Minister Harper's historic majority! As our Members of Parliament and Senators work hard in Parliament to keep our economy strong, I hear from so many of you about the work of EDAs in fundraising, recruiting new members and outreach in our communities. I am happy to announce, on behalf of National Council, we are busy planning the Conservative Party Convention to be held in 2013. The convention will be held in Calgary from June 27th to 29th. Information on the convention program, delegate selection and logistics will follow in the months ahead. It surprises many people to discover this will be the fi rst convention the Conservative Party of Canada has ever held in Alberta. It will be an ideal opportunity to thank so many generous, hard-working supporters from the West and to celebrate in the city where our Prime Minister has his home riding. I know that all of you have been working hard at the EDA level to keep in touch with members and supporters. The convention will be a golden opportunity to reach out to existing and potential members and get them more engaged. This could be through involvement in the policy and constitutional process already underway across the country or by attending the convention itself. One of the strong themes of our conventions is to take the time to honour the volunteers who power our Party. I would ask you now to start thinking of possible nominees for our Maple Leaf Awards. Official nomination forms and information will follow. What would you like to see more of in our conventions? I would love to hear your ideas and suggestions, as always, this is how we stay a member-powered party. We will keep you informed as we venture together towards Convention 2013! Sincerely, John Walsh johnwalsh@conservative.ca BECAUSE: Mr. Bumble's gun registry By George Jonas, National Post http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=b456a786-0d51-470f-98ed-ef3d559dce0c The minute anyone talks or writes about free speech, some twit is sure to pop up and say that there's no absolute freedom of speech. They usually can't resist adding that no one is free to shout "Fire!" in a crowded movie theatre. They're quite right. The only thing wrong with those who keep insisting there are no absolutes is they do it to restrict some particulars that irk them. Everyone knows free speech isn't "absolute." If it were, it would be legal to defame people, counsel murder, or impersonate a police officer. No one disputes that being free to use hand gestures doesn't entitle anyone to signal a truck to back over a toddler. Our freedom to gesticulate isn't "absolute." It's enough, though, to give censors the finger. Now that I got this off my chest, let me turn to a different topic. Well -- maybe not entirely different. It is another facet of the complex syndrome that prompted Charles Dickens to have Mr. Bumble call the law an "ass." This week, Canada's gun laws confirmed Mr. Bumble's assessment (pun intended) by sending firearms dealer Bruce Montague to prison, after the Ontario Court of Appeal turned down his plea for relief. As the case was argued, the court pretty much had to, though it probably would have turned it down anyway. Some might call a system that incarcerates "a decent, hard working, otherwise law-abiding citizen" -- as the trial judge who sentenced Montague described him -- Orwellian or Kafkaesque. I prefer Dickensian, because naming laws more sinister than Canada's gun registry is easy, but naming one more asinine is hard. With the imposition of Bill C-68 in 1995, for no discernible reason except urban angst and anti-masculine paranoia, the government tied the ownership and acquisition of all firearms to a bureaucratic rigmarole. It's a procedure as intrusive, humiliating, and astronomically expensive as it's useless -- that is, useless for any purpose other than reminding citizens that in Canada the state can do anything. At Montague's trial, the judge himself described the law as "convoluted and dangerous to honest citizens." Perhaps thinking that Canada has no scofflaws growing wild, our lawmakers set out to cultivate some by criminalizing the hitherto lawful conduct of owning and acquiring long guns. Before long, a backlash of newly minted "criminals" assembled in outposts of resistance such as the Canadian Unregistered Firearm Owners Association. They were upstanding, law-and-order citizens, radicalized by what Shakespeare called "the insolence of office," preaching and occasionally practicing civil disobedience. The state's disrespected minions plotted administrative vengeance, as is both their duty and sport. Montague seemed like a straggler; vulnerable because of his sizable arsenal -- described by the Court of Appeal as "sufficient for a small-scale insurrection." The Crown threw everything except the kitchen sink at him and his wife, Donna -- and I'm not so sure they skipped the kitchen sink. The prosecution laid 53 charges. After a four-month trial, the jury acquitted of 27 and convicted of 26. If it had been basketball, Montague would have won. Since it was a criminal trial, he lost. For mistakenly believing he lived in a free country -- i.e., he had a common law-derived, constitutionally protected right to his own property without having to answer the state's impertinent, humiliating questions about his personal life -- the authorities proposed to seize Montague's home, business, firearms, ban him from his livelihood as a gun dealer and manufacturer and send him to jail for 18 months. Civil disobedience isn't for sissies. Don't do it at home -- except where else would you do it? On appeal, Montague and his wife wanted Justices Moldaver, MacPherson and Cronk to agree with them "that they have a constitutional right to possess arms in their home for self-defence, free from government interference or regulation." It was a good request for martyrdom; a lousy one for acquittal. Predictably, the appeal court justices didn't agree. They quoted the Supreme Court that "Canadians, unlike Americans, do not have a constitutional right to bear arms." The justices couldn't resist adding that, even assuming the Charter did protect people's... [on-line story ended in mid-sentence] ------------------------------------ www.brucemontague.ca CITATION: R. v. Montague, 2010 ONCA 141 DATE: 20100225 - DOCKET: C48542 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Moldaver, MacPherson and Cronk JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen, Respondent and William Bruce Montague and Donna Jeanne Montague http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2010/february/2010ONCA0141.htm ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V15 #436 *********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@scorpion.bogend.ca Moderator 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".)