From: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V15 #815 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 Friday, July 12 2013 Volume 15 : Number 815 In this issue: Larry and Jim discuss the merits of Religious teaching RE: Cdn-Firearms Digest V15 #808 "Fur industry makes a comeback" Gun Laws and Gun Crime Re: MP BLAKE RICHARDS ON FIREARMS LICENCING ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:21:05 -0600 From: "Jim Szpajcher" Subject: Larry and Jim discuss the merits of Religious teaching Larry - > The U.S. conquered Iraq in six weeks. They set a world record. The Americans did no such thing. The Americans conquered Japan and Germany in 1945. You can tell by the way these nations changed. By contrast, the Americans merely occupied Iraq in 2003. Just like the Germans did to France in 1940 - also in 6 weeks, against much heavier opposition, one might add. And the Americans left Iraq much as the Germans left France: on the run, with the subject country devastated and in ruins. > The premise of Islam is to enforce Sharia law here and now, because it's > essentially martial law. That's why deserting is punishable by death. > > Christians are instructed to let Judgement Day and their deity do that. Yeah: we saw how that worked during the Crusades, the Inquisition and the Witch Hunts. And we have seen how Christian nations treat those who oppose them: Nuclear attacks and Firestorms on cities filled with civilians and Death Camps. Yeah: they couldn't wait for Judgement Day and let their Deity do THAT. You obviously have not read the 10 Commandments lately, either: 1 - I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me. 2 - You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments. > There is a separation of Church and state, render unto God what is God's > and render unto Cesar what is Cesar's. You clearly have a skewed idea of Christianity by watching too much FoxNews "Fair and Balanced!!!" The separation of Church and State is not a Christian concept, but one brought forward by those who revolted against British rule in the Colonies. In Britain, the Queen is the head of the Church of England, and anyone who knows anything of the history of the West will understand the power that the Catholic Church had over the kings of Europe. (Henry VIII had to tread very carefully, which is how the Church of England came to resemble the Catholic Church so much.) > Jim, how you can think we're naive enough to fall for this ... I don't > know. > We all know Evangelical Christians and none of them are out bombing > the Lutheran or Roman Catholic churches down the block. Not even > do they attack the Unitarians either. > > What is the colour of the sky in your world? Larry: That is because they all have access to the same weapons. Instead, they follow Harold Bloom's advice, and pick on folks in a different culture which do not have access to the wealth of the West. > Jim, read Chapter 9 verse 5 of the Koran and quote it here, please. > It's the last and thus over-riding instruction. You know what it says: Now tell me how that is different from the 2nd Commandment above: "For I am a jealous God, visiting iniquity down to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me".At least the Koran does not promise THAT. > How many of these are the anti-gun leftists? exactly. And how many are not? Exactly. Jim Szpajcher St. Paul, AB ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 07:44:10 -0700 From: "Clive Edwards" <45clive@telus.net> Subject: RE: Cdn-Firearms Digest V15 #808 > The Muslim Brotherhood Front organizations, who by the way, is the > background source for your quoted article here. Whether it's the > U.K.'s Guardian or the NDP in Canada, the Muslim Brotherhood figure > prominently in their sources. The Muslim Brotherhood has long been infiltrated and controlled by British/American Intel. They came to power in Egypt through the offices of the CIA, a subset of the US State Department. > Islam in its scriptures does not admit of nation states, but only a > worldwide ummah or Muslim community. Neither do the globalists in any meaningful way, i.e., true national sovereignty. Global mercantilism doesn't count as sovereignty. > outside the MSM know 9/11 at around 3,000. I'm surprised any informed person can still accept the official story of 9/11. Tens of thousands of engineers, architects, demolition experts (military and civilian) have explained the unanswered questions that do indeed indicate if not define a black flag operation. Ask Willy Floyd, someone whose opinion I respect, about the attack on the Pentagon. > Oh, and since the Obama administration is listing self-confessed jihadi > Major Nidal Malik Hassan's terrorist attack at Fort Hood as an > incidence of "workplace violence" So a white guy goes postal at his worksite and it's one thing and a Muslim goes postal at his and it's another? I'd say the problem is not enough co-workers with concealed carry is the problem. Many whackos go off the deep end by blaming it on God, the Devil or Voices. > One group is dedicated to preserving the U.S. Constitution and the > scriptural doctrine of universal human rights and liberal democracy. There are many groups dedicated to preserving the US Constitution, but the US Government is not one of them. Ever since Lincoln, US presidents have torn out those sections of the Constitution they did not agree with or which hindered their plans. Bush and Obama haven't bothered to play that game, they've just run the whole document (what was left of it) through the shredder. The only people left who care about the US Constitution are labeled "home grown terrorists" because of their beliefs. Most of these are actual Christians, not phony or "Neo" Christians. > This article depends on the reader being ignorant of world and American > history and current events. Ignorance of world events and world history is only part of the story. Mainly, the story gets to be told by the victors. The get to pay the historians and journalists to write the story. How long do you think you major league news anchor would last in their job if they told the truth? > The Boston bombing trial and news coverage has shown again how the > ideology works and the "clash of civilizations". For me the Boston bombing doesn't pass the smell test. Same with the copycat event in Victoria recently. Seems like a big budget protection racket trying to keep their customers in line. It is this protection racket that concerns me much more than any other terrorists. 45clive ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 09:21:31 -0600 From: Larry James Fillo Subject: "Fur industry makes a comeback" An 86 pound monster beaver! A few that size and they'd be able to damn the South Saskatchewan River. ====================================== Fur industry makes a comeback By Jonathan Charlton, The Starphoenix July 12, 2013 8:55 AM Gordon Gessner, a hobbyist trapper, poses with a stuffed beaver inside Cabela's. He found an 86-pound beaver on his trap line on one occasion. Photograph by: Greg Pender , The StarPhoenix Gordon Gessner's favourite part of trapping is finding out what he's caught. "I always want to find out what went there. I've never once tried to do it for money, I've always done it just for enjoyment," he says. "I would definitely say, just the anticipation of not knowing what has been there. Say you're muskrat trapping, you could have caught a muskrat but maybe a mink came and ate your muskrat and now all you've got is a foot left. Every time you check your trap it could tell a story." Like the time he caught his first beaver at the age of 12. Gessner got his start when he was seven, setting traps for gophers and rabbits with his uncles around his hometown of Churchbridge. At 12, he graduated to beavers, muskrats, mink and raccoons. One day, he followed his trap line to a weathered, 86-pound male beaver. It was too big for him to remove from the trap himself, "so I had to pedal my bike all the way back into Churchbridge, I got my buddy and his dad and the three of us drove out with a truck and we wrestled it out of the trap," he recalls. The arthritic creature had only a third of its tail remaining. It had previously suffered multiple bullet wounds, and numerous bullets were still lodged in its body. "You can catch a thousand other beavers and never see that again," Gessner says. He had to give up trapping after graduating high school, since there wasn't much opportunity to do it when he moved through Lethbridge and Moose Jaw. Now the 29-year-old is back in Saskatoon, working at the Cabela's outlet. Last year, he started setting traps again. Mainly, he was looking for muskrats. Prices for their pelts have nearly doubled in recent years, to around $13.50 from $7, he says. Coyote pelts have also skyrocketed in value, to an average of about $80 from as low as $35. The total cash value of pelts sold in Saskatchewan has fluctuated between $1 million and $3 million over the past 15 years, hitting a low of $1.1 million from 55,001 pelts in 2010. Those numbers soared in 2012, when 130,949 pelts earned almost $4.3 million. North American Fur Auctions, one of the two major fur auctions in Canada, reports on its website that in this year's May sale, nearly 100 per cent of all stock was sold. More than 300,000 muskrat pelts sold out at the "unbelievable, historically high price of $14.02 for the regular pelts and an overall average including low-grades of $13.90. To the best of our knowledge this has never been achieved before," the site says. Still, it's a challenge to make a living solely from trapping. For Gessner, it's a hobby. Given the amount of driving it takes to cover a trapping area, gas is too expensive, he says. "If one was able to find a whole bunch of used traps, if I had three weeks off work ... you know, I still don't know. If it was my only job I don't think I'd be able to do it. Even the serious trappers I know, they certainly earn some income on the side." The spike in prices is due to increasing demand from overseas markets, says Don Gordon, president of the Saskatchewan Trappers Association. China buys furs for manufacturing. Japan, Korea and Taiwan are strong retail markets, with cold spells and people with money to spend, he says. The higher prices are attracting more young people to the lifestyle. "The youth in the province are more interested. The Trappers Association has held more and more classes; larger groups of kids are coming through," Gordon says. It's simple math: 100 muskrat pelts at $10 each brings in $1,000, he notes. "You can do that in a weekend, versus flipping burgers at McDonald's for $10 an hour." But trapping is hard work, he cautions. "People don't realize how dedicated you are when you are trapping. When you set that trap you're committed to checking it daily, or we have check times in areas up to three days. You can't just say, 'I'm going to Mexico for a week and I'll check my traps when I get home.' " Trappers also see themselves as stewards of the land. "We're doing this to harvest a surplus, balance nature and prevent things like this beaver problem and coyote problem in the province, overpopulation in areas causing grief with human interaction." Despite the hard work, Gordon has continued trapping for nearly 40 years. "It's kind of hard to describe. You have to be a unique person to do this, especially in the bush. You're out there by yourself - yeah, you can take people with you, or have a trapping partner - but you're out there. I guess it's the dream a lot of people dream about and never get an opportunity to do, but once you start doing it, it's kind of tough to give it up." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, July 12, 2013 10:43 am From: "Dennis R. Young" Subject: Gun Laws and Gun Crime American Thinker - July 12, 2013 Gun Laws and Gun Crime By Sierra Rayne In just 7 years after bringing the gun control Bill C-68 into force, Canada's rate for the use of a firearm while committing an offence increased by a factor of 4.4 and stayed at this new higher level. http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/gun_laws_and_gun_crime.html Gun control advocates have long promoted a wide range of policies and laws intended to restrict the "right of the people to keep and bear arms." Their arguments follow the direction that while broad, sweeping laws to eliminate private gun ownership and use would be ideal, even small, incremental restrictions on ownership and use (e.g., background checks prior to purchase, gun registries, etc.) would be a clear step in the right direction and would provide measurable reductions in the rate of gun crime. Canada has run the latter experiment, and the results in no way support gun-control efforts. Before looking at the Canadian data in detail, it is useful to consider the global relationship between the firearm ownership rate and the corresponding homicide rate by firearms, as shown in the chart below using data for 102 nations (including the USA, of course). There is no significant correlation between the rate of gun ownership and the homicide rate by guns among these countries. Similarly, we see no significant correlation between the rate of gun ownership and the percentage of homicides by firearm within this group of nations. Moving back to the Canadian gun control experiment, and as noted in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police 2010 report on this topic, "[i]n 1993, the Federal Government indicated its intention to proceed with additional [gun control] measures, including a universal licensing system that would apply to individuals and a universal registration system that would apply to all firearms. Senate approval and Royal Assent for Bill C-68 (An Act Respecting Firearms and Other Weapons to create the Firearms Act) were granted on December 5, 1995." Key provisions of the Canadian law included the following: . the requirement for licenses in order to possess and acquire firearms and buy ammunition . the registration of all firearms, including rifles and shotguns . Criminal Code amendments providing stricter penalties for certain serious crimes where firearms are used (e.g., kidnapping, murder, etc.) and classifying all .25 and .32 caliber handguns, as well as those with a barrel length of 105mm or less, as prohibited firearms On October 25, 2011, the governing Conservative Party of Canada introduced Bill C-19, formally called "An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act" with the more precise short title of "Ending the Long-gun Registry Act." The legislation was subsequently passed in the House of Commons by a vote of 159 to 130 and in the Senate by a vote of 50 to 27, receiving Royal Assent on April 5, 2012. Did this comprehensive Canadian gun law reduce the rate of gun crime in Canada between its implementation date and 2011? No. Using official government data from the Statistics Canada database (CANSIM Table 252-0051: Incident-based crime statistics, by detailed violations), we find that the national rate per 100,000 population for the crime of using a firearm in the commission of an offence increased linearly from 0.28 in 1998 (the earliest year for which data is available)up to 1.24 in 2004, and has remained approximately constant at this elevated level up to 2011 (the latest year for which data are available), including a peak of 1.51 in 2007. Thus, in just 7 years after bringing the gun control Bill C-68 into force, Canada's rate for the use of a firearm while committing an offence increased by a factor of 4.4 and stayed at this new higher level. Similarly, the rate for discharging a firearm with intent increased steadily from a rate of 0.65 per 100,000 population in 1998 up to 1.81 in 2010 and 1.66 in 2011. The crime of "[w]eapons possession contrary to order" increased almost 8-fold from 0.31 per 100,000 population in 1998 to 2.33 in 2011. We need to control for some variables, as gun-control proponents may attempt to argue that crime rates in Canada were generally increasing over this timeframe; and thus, the increasing use of firearms while committing offences was just reflecting the higher overall rates of crime in the nation. Such is most definitely not the case. The rate for all violations dropped steadily between 1998 and 2011, for a total decline of 26% during this period. Analogous declines were observed for all Criminal Code violations including traffic (-28%), all Criminal Code violations excluding traffic (-29%), total violent Criminal Code violations (-8.5%), robbery (-21%), property crime (-38%), and motor-vehicle theft (-57%). Rates for homicide and attempted murder were unchanged. By comparison, the rates for violent crime (-32%), murder and non-negligent manslaughter (-25%), robbery (-31%), aggravated assault (-33%), property crime (-28%), and motor vehicle theft (-50%) in the United States between 1998 and 2011 were also declining rapidly, and -- in many cases -- faster than in Canada. Indeed, the rates for aggravated assault (+16%) and assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm (+18%) actually increased in Canada. Recall how the mid-1990s gun-control legislation in Canada enacted "Criminal Code amendments providing stricter penalties for certain serious crimes where firearms are used (e.g., kidnapping, murder, etc.)"? The rate of first and second degree murder did not change in Canada between 1998 and 2011, and the rate of forcible confinement or kidnapping actually increased significantly (peaking at 128% in 2004 compared to the 1998 datum, and with an overall increase of 76% between 1998 and 2011). These Canadian crime statistics and trends -- especially when compared against their American counterparts, where Second Amendment rights and much weaker gun control laws exist -- cannot be reconciled with the claims of gun control advocates. In fact, perhaps they agree better with the saying that "if we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." Sierra Rayne is a proud member of the NRA, holds a Ph.D. in Chemistry, and writes regularly on environment, energy, and national security topics. He can be found on Twitter at @rayne_sierra. Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/gun_laws_and_gun_crime.html#ixzz2YqkWeEE0 Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook ------------------------------ Date: Fri, July 12, 2013 11:23 am From: "Mark L Horstead" Subject: Re: MP BLAKE RICHARDS ON FIREARMS LICENCING Dear Mr Richards ----- Original Message ----- > From: Dennis R. Young > Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 1969 7:00 PM > Subject: MP BLAKE RICHARDS ON FIREARMS LICENCING > > FYI - I wrote him back and encourage others to do likewise and copy your > own MP. > > From: Blake Richards, M.P. [mailto:write blake@blakerichards.ca ] > Sent: July-11-13 2:56 PM > To: dhyoung@shaw.ca > Subject: Re: gun registration > > Dear Dennis R. Young, > > Thank you for your email regarding gun registration. As you know, on > Nov. 1, 2012 Public Safety Minister Vic Toews announced that the > records within the national long-gun registry, with the exception of > registry information related to Quebec, have been destroyed. The > elimination of the registry marked the successful end of a long > journey for Canadian hunters, farmers, ranchers, and shooting enthusiasts. "The successful end"? As Mr Winston Churchill said, at a crucial point during the Second World War, "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." I know most assuredly that this is not a "successful end". I am not so sure, however, that this is even the "end of the beginning". Too many Conservative MPs, including Mr Harper himself, have forgotten the promises made to firearms owners. We trusted his word, and the words of other MPs, and, in return, we worked hard and donated considerable sums of our money in order to get you people elected. Actions of this government, and words like yours, indicate pretty clearly that we have wasted our time, toil, and cash. We have been, and are being, taken for granted. We have been betrayed.   The promise was to repeal the entire Liberal legislation and replace it with something effective that respected the rights of firearms owners, not just one minor component.   One of your colleagues, formerly held in high regard by firearms owners, Mr Garry Breitkreuz, promised us that "Our firearms policy will effectively return our gun laws to the way they were before 1995 "except for the mandatory minimum sentences that we propose to increase. Then I personally promise that I will start the task of fixing all the flaws in federal firearm laws by requiring that they be subjected to a public safety test administered by the Auditor General of Canada. My proposal includes a sunset clause on all gun control laws that have been proven by the Auditor General not to be cost effective at reducing the criminal use of firearms and improving public safety." Has that promise been kept? If not, is your claim of a "successful end" valid?   Mr Harper promised us in January of 2002 that: "I was and still am in total agreement with the statement made in the House of Commons by former Reform Leader Preston Manning on June 13, 1995: 'Bill C-68, if passed into law, will not be a good law. It will be a bad law, a blight on the legislative record of the government, a law that fails the three great tests of constitutionality, of effectiveness and of democratic consent of the governed. What should be the fate of a bad law? It should be repealed...' C-68 has proven to be a bad law and has created a bureaucratic nightmare for both gun owners and the government. As Leader of the Official Opposition, I will use all the powers afforded to me as Leader and continue our party's fight to repeal Bill C-68 and replace it with a firearms control system that is cost effective and respects the rights of Canadians to own and use firearms responsibly." Please note the key point: "Repeal Bill C-68".   Has this government kept Mr Harper's promise to us? If not, is your claim of a "successful end" valid?   > I am incredibly proud to have worked alongside Prime Minister Stephen > Harper and my other colleagues to end this wasteful and unnecessary > program. To be sure, we appreciate this, but any notion of pride should be restrained until your promises have actually been fulfilled, in their entirety. The worst parts of the Liberal legislation - now, apparently, adopted and endorsed by the government that promised to repeal it and the government that we toiled hard to install - remain. I, and millions of other honest citizens, remain criminals. We were made so by the Liberals, and, seven years after that party was swept out of office, we are still kept so by the Conservatives. The Liberal/Conservative Firearms Act, forever known as Bill C-68 by firearms owners, made the simple possession of firearms a criminal act, for the first time ever. Lawfully-acquired and lawfully-owned property suddenly became illegal property, and the owners thereof became subject to lengthy jail sentences and criminal records. The only prevention of prosecution is the possession of a licence and, still in some cases today, a registration. Simply possess a gun, yet neither commit a true crime nor even have the slightest intent to do so, and one goes to jail. Have a licence, however, and one has, effectively, permission from the government to commit the "crime" of possession. The difference between "freedom" (a relative notion for firearms owners) and jail hinges not on whether one has committed a true crime (murder, rape, robbery, assault etcetera) or not, but whether one possesses of a piece of paper or not. If you have not read the Firearms Act, you should.   The Firearms Act also seeks to strip us of several Constitutionally-protected rights and freedoms, including, but not limited to: the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice; the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure (our homes are open to warrantless "inspections"; the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty (there is a reverse-onus clause); the right not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishment; and rights against self-incrimination. If you have not read the Firearms Act, you should.   If we change our address, we have to inform the police. Please name one other category of persons that must do so. Once you've been able to do that, you'll have a better understanding of our long-simmering anger.   The Liberal legislation was designed to attack the most law-abiding segment of Canadian society. It has no effect whatsoever on true criminals; those may not be a protected class according to the Constitution, but Liberals obviously view them as such.   The previous Firearms Acquisition Certificate regime cost far less, did not turn honest citizens into criminals, screened applicants at least as effectively, and generated remarkably little, if any, opposition within the firearms community. Pre-Firearms Act estimates indicated that there were five to seven million firearms owners in Canada, who held fifteen- to twenty-one million firearms. This legislation has seen an extremely low level of compliance, and that should come as no surprise given Mr Harper's earlier and more honest description quoted above. I joined the Reform Party in 1990, before it had even become officially active in Ontario. That membership continued through the Alliance period and further into the Conservative era. It lapsed at the beginning of this year, and I am highly unlikely to renew. I have been waiting patiently for this Government to keep its promise to Canadian firearms owners, but it has become obvious that this will never happen. The Liberal Firearms Act, the odious Bill C-68, has become the Conservative Firearms Act. When did the party that promised to repeal it in its entirety decide to adopt it, and why? Why should I continue to support the Conservative Party? What is the difference between the Conservative and Liberal parties, especially on this matter? I had such high hopes, but high hopes only lead to a deeper sense of betrayal.   I know of many firearms owners who will either not vote, spoil their ballots, or cast protest ballots for other parties in the next election. I may not vote in the next election either, and I have not missed doing so since I first became eligible. If I do vote, it's likely to be for the Libertarian Party. If Mr Harper wants my vote next time, and the votes of other firearms owners - it's not too late - he shall have to earn them. It will not happen automatically. Mark L Horstead Newmarket, Ontario ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V15 #815 *********************************** 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".)