CDN-FIREARMS Digest 78 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Gun Clubs in Vancouver by Tom Meleady 2) RE: another view by eleyton@kean.ucs.mun.ca 3) Re: another view by rmacdona@sanjuan.uvic.ca (Robert (Mac) Macdonald) 4) A Constitutional Focus by Harry Davis 5) Re: A Constitutional Focus by LOHSEACH@MAX.UREGINA.CA 6) RE: another view by desolla@cmc.ca (Keith de Solla) 7) RE: another view by "fred (f.) davis" 8) RE: another view - anecdote by skeeter@skatter.usask.ca (Skeeter Abell-Smith) 9) More Constitutional Focus by Harry Davis ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Topic No. 1 Date: Fri, 05 Aug 1994 14:12:39 +0600 From: Tom Meleady To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: Gun Clubs in Vancouver Message-ID: <9408052012.AA12085@orion.sal> Hi Folks, I've just moved to BC and am looking for some gun clubs in the lower mainland, does anybody have a list of clubs in the area or any ideas where I would find more info. Cheers, Tom ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ Topic No. 2 Date: Fri, 05 Aug 1994 14:18:10 +0600 From: eleyton@kean.ucs.mun.ca To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: RE: another view Message-ID: <9408052018.AA12089@orion.sal> I like your points, but I think it's a terrible tactical error to go with number 2. - make it a women's issue by referring to defence. This is *not* something most Canadians are comfortable with, and will reinforce the idea that we're all a bunch of paranoid loonies, while not enlisting any women to the cause. Elliott Leyton ----- End Included Message ----- I think number 1 and number 2 are in conflict. i.e. don't mention crime but say women need protection from crime. Probably not the best. I have to agree with Elliott here. I will make one exception. One could mention that it's a bad idea to take firearms away from the victim when there is a report of violence. I know of several cases where ex-wives saved their own skins by blowing away their husbands as a last resort. There were arrests of and restraining orders against the husbands. The wives were never charged with anything since it was so clearly self-defence. skeeter [moderator] ------------------------------ Topic No. 3 Date: Fri, 05 Aug 1994 15:41:12 +0600 From: rmacdona@sanjuan.uvic.ca (Robert (Mac) Macdonald) To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: Re: another view Message-ID: <9408052141.AA12120@orion.sal> > > I think number 1 and number 2 are in conflict. i.e. don't > mention crime but say women need protection from crime. > Probably not the best. I have to agree with Elliott here. > > I will make one exception. One could mention that it's > a bad idea to take firearms away from the victim when there > is a report of violence. I know of several cases where ex-wives > saved their own skins by blowing away their husbands as a last > resort. There were arrests of and restraining orders against the > husbands. The wives were never charged with anything since it was > so clearly self-defence. > > skeeter [moderator] > > Hear, hear. Mac *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Oh, gude ale comes and gude ale goes, Gude ale gars me sell my hose, Sell my hose, and pawn my shoon, Gude ale keeps my heart aboon -- Rabbie Burns ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ Topic No. 4 Date: Fri, 05 Aug 1994 22:49:23 +0600 From: Harry Davis To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: A Constitutional Focus Message-ID: <9408060449.AA12237@orion.sal> This message is addressed for discussion and argument to the subscribers of cdn-firearms, with the collateral wish that a substantial U.S. contingent will also read and engage. See, also, Topic No. 1 in Digest 76, by Achim Lohse. I subscribed to cdn-firearms because I thought that I would learn from the experiences and responses of our Canadian associates. That is, in fact, the case, a most welcome development. The contact has also reinforced in me the conviction, long held, that much of our concern, discussion, action, perhaps even belief, is focused on the "small things" and not on the heart of the matter. I'm using the word "our" to embrace both Canadian and U.S. interests. Perhaps I should think of them as North American interests, if you will allow me to exclude Mexico from "North American." The heart of the matter is neither hunting nor shooting sports. The heart is personal freedom. That doesn't mean irresponsible license, or harmful or uncivilized behavior, but it does mean freedom from the oppressive power of government. The reason why an adult, non-criminal, trained citizenry should keep and have free use of assault rifles or pistols is that such firearms are the common arms of our police and military personnel. Maybe some day the firearms will be phasers. Who knows, or even cares.? The point is that a trained and responsible citizenry is the only check against tyranny, a word for the oppressive power of government. Put another way, the issue is constitutional rather than personal. Why do we not frame the argument and the conflict in these terms? Why do we tend to view our responsibilities as intimidating politicians or preserving a hunting attribute of the culture? Perhaps because there isn't a real conviction in the matter. Perhaps many of us are just trying to hang on to enjoyable personal interests and hobbies. Maybe the phrase "freedom from the oppressive power of government" seems a bit too churchy. Practical men and women, after all, like to feel thoughts of action, anger and intimidation, winning. I want my shooting sports! Some, yes, but not all, and not the majority. There is a minority belief that the issue is not going to be won, or even joined, by putting our energies into the activities of reasoning with or intimidating politicians, calling names, or the general p___ing and moaning that prevails. Approached from the standpoint of hunting or hobby the game is already over, doomed to be played out over years of frustration, losing it cartridge by cartridge to bureaucrats who think we are rather strange. In the United States the issue will be won or lost in the federal courts and the Supreme Court. In the United Staes we need to focus our interest, speech, and activities on bringing and presenting cases that will elucidate the constitutional meaning. The NRA does some of that, but not enough. What about Canada? I haven't the foggiest idea of the fate of Canada. What do you think. Is the constitutional aspect so debased or eroded that the effort isn't worth it? One of my personal concerns is that this whole process will take so long I will have forgotten where I buried the guns! Regards, Harry Davis Houston, TX ------------- End Included Text ------------- Don't consider anything written below to be in disagreement with what is written above. However... I think there are two main reasons we are avoiding the "defence against tyranny" argument. 1) It sounds very "American" to a lot of people (which they equate with 'badness'), and 2) most will never believe Canadians have any RIGHT to own firearms. (In the U.S it's a constitutional guarantee and many STILL do not believe it is a right while the legislators infringe away...) I tell people when I can that the U.S. and Canada have a lot in common, legally and otherwise. We all have a right to firearms. Just because our constitution doesn't specifically mention firearms doesn't mean they are illegal. Remember the history of our countries: the U.S. broke away from what they saw are a tyranical government, so their constitution reflects that fact; Canada was (and to some degree still is) a British subject which never rebelled. Canada's history is one of complacence. We are a nation of sheep. We tend to think more in terms of what (the gov't tell us) is good the many. People here don't WANT to believe we have the right to firearms; the right to rebel by force when necessary. That sort of talk scares them because they are unable to differentiate between good battles and bad. People want security, not freedom. As a group, we Canadian owners are afraid of being lumped in with the 'evil NRA types' and so we avoid talking about self-defence (which many of my fellow Canadians don't believe we have a right to, even after I show them Sections 32, 40 and R. v. Colette). We avoid talking about 'blowing away bad guys' because of the images we KNOW that will conjure up (no thanks to 30 years of media programming). We are left with talk of wanting to hunt (which is becoming un-P.C.) and shoot ("You mean it's an _Olympic_ event?"). Most of the non-owners think collecting is okay IF the firearms are all de-activated, nevermind that that is like cancelling all of a philatelist's stamps, or drilling holes through a collector's coins (after all, they might _use_ them someday to send a letter bomb or to buy some poison). I am sure of two things: 1) we will only make enemies if we get hard-nosed, refuse to compromise, and demand that our freedoms be restored to their former state. 2) we will get no co-operation or action by just asking nicely and being polite, compromising our rights away. My friends, we, as a species, are about to become extinct. Can we stop it? -- Copyright 1994 Skeeter Abell-Smith, moderator of cdn-firearms ------------------------------ Topic No. 5 Date: Sat, 06 Aug 1994 12:25:45 +0600 From: LOHSEACH@MAX.UREGINA.CA To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: Re: A Constitutional Focus Message-ID: <9408061825.AA12492@orion.sal> Harry is essentially correct. Once you abandon the position that the public has a right to firearms, the issue is lost. The question of "constitutional" RIGHTS is a red herring. As Ferdinand Lundberg observed in "The Rich and the Super-Rich" (a best-seller of the sixties which debunked the myth of equal opportunity in the US), the USA has managed to achieve in two centuries the same level of socioeconomic rigidity it took India two millenia to achieve. Hence the inordinate and somewhat silly emphasis on "tradition". The dictum "use it or lose it" outranks any constitutional right. Speaking of tradition - I remember hearing the news of John F. Kennedy's death. I was in the basement range of my high school, getting firearms instruction as part of my compulsory army cadet training. What happened to that tradition - the one that postulated that a citizenry trained, equipped, and mentally prepared in the use of deadly force is an asset to a democratic society? I'll tell you - it's been replaced with the concept of the "professional" (aka mercenary) soldier, who will do what he's told, when he's told, without asking questions, and without regard for higher allegiances, such as to humanity or democracy. Such people are much more useful in messy situations such as Panama or Somalia. More importantly, they can be used to crack skulls at home as needed. I recall an occasion only a few years ago, when I lived in Invermere, B.C., 90 miles from the nearest pistolsmith. I sought a permit from my local firearms registrar to take a pistol on a weekend trip to Calgary so I could make the rounds of the four or five pistolsmiths there and get a quote on repairing my handgun. The response (and this from a policeman who had known me personally and by reputation for several years ) was: "...we can't have you running all over town with a pistol..." The permit I requested would have specified where I could take the gun, and would still have required me to transport it unloaded and locked in a case with its registration certificate and permit to convey. The person who made this insulting remark was himself wearing a _loaded_ revolver on his belt, with which he "ran around town" himself every day. Remember the expression, from the far-distant sixties - "second-class citizen"? That's how I felt, and continue to feel, about this situation. I disagree with Skeeter that we Canadians have no right to firearms. But that right has to be created and re-affirmed every day, no matter whether in Switzerland or in Mexico. We can do it here too, if we're willing to pay the price. For British Columbians or Albertans it might require separation from central Canada. For eastern and central Canadians, it might require relocating to the west. Too much to pay for firearms? How about for freedom, dignity, self-respect? The "gun-control" movement has to do with dis-empowerment (we used to say "emascualtion"). It's about not trusting the public, and about putting all power in the hands of officials. Nor will this movement stop with the elimination of all privately owned firearms. Off-road capable motor vehicles will be slated for prohibition, as will the uncensored exchange of ideas and informations, such as we have in this forum. The result will be a caste society of officials armed with the latest and greatest technology, and effectively free from any public control, lording it over the rest of us, cowed and fearful of saying a wrong word or stepping off the designated path. Ironically, there may well be room for "sport shooters" in this scenario. Maybe all you'll have to do is get a partial lobotomy, or some sort of electronic or chemical brain implant to get your authorization to punch paper or shoot the odd deer. Is this what we Canadian shooters are fighting for? Achim ------------ End Included Text ------------ Just one thing: I said we DO have the right to firearms, but that most Canadians seem to think we don't and that we don't have a constitutional guarantee of government non-infringement in the same way the U.S. does. skeeter ------------------------------ Topic No. 6 Date: Sat, 06 Aug 1994 12:26:57 +0600 From: desolla@cmc.ca (Keith de Solla) To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: RE: another view Message-ID: <9408061826.AA12496@orion.sal> > > I like your points, but I think it's a terrible tactical error actually, they weren't my points, but someone elses. I was just posting them. > to go with number 2. - make it a women's issue by referring to defence. > This is *not* something most Canadians are comfortable with, and will > reinforce the idea that we're all a bunch of paranoid loonies, while > not enlisting any women to the cause. > Elliott Leyton > > > ----- End Included Message ----- > > I think number 1 and number 2 are in conflict. i.e. don't > mention crime but say women need protection from crime. > Probably not the best. I have to agree with Elliott here. Yes 1 and 2 seem to be conflicting, but the points were made by a lawyer. :-) Self-defence in any way, shape, or form seems to be distasteful to many Canadians (read: sheep who believe the gov't will always look after them), so trying to make women's self-defence will not likely do us any good. -keith ------------------------------ Topic No. 7 Date: Mon, 08 Aug 1994 12:21:43 +0600 From: "fred (f.) davis" To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: RE: another view Message-ID: <9408081821.AA13102@orion.sal> > >Self-defence in any way, shape, or form seems to be distasteful to >many Canadians (read: sheep who believe the gov't will always look >after them), so trying to make women's self-defence will not likely >do us any good. > >-keith > Didn't Dave Thomlinson (NFA) try this approach a few years ago? It got press at the time, a big write-up in the Ottawa Citizen. He suggested that women be eligible for CCW permits because they are much more vulnerable to attack then men are. The femi-nazis foamed at the mouth at this one, basically stating that the gun is a tool of "man" and we all know, of course, that "man hurts woman". (Sarcasm folks, but I think they actually _do_ believe this). Fred ----- End Included Message ----- Since spousal abuse is equally split between men and women (with women often being more agressive) we should just focus on violence overall; not just domestic violence. Men are much more likely to be the victims of violence (than women) and several times more likely to be murdered. We should consider this things before hopping onto the 'violence against women' bandwagon. However, I don't understand why the NAC(otsow)-types want their sisters to be defenceless. The attacker has the advantage WITHOUT a pistol. If he has a pistol (which the law won't affect) it makes little difference. But if the woman has a pistol, she has an out. At least 28 women shot and killed their attackers (in the U.S.) last year in clear self-defense. skeeter ------------------------------ Topic No. 8 Date: Mon, 08 Aug 1994 12:23:11 +0600 From: skeeter@skatter.usask.ca (Skeeter Abell-Smith) To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: RE: another view - anecdote Message-ID: <9408081823.AA13106@orion.sal> ----- Begin Included Message ----- Sender: ak409@freenet.carleton.ca (David Bartlett) Subject: RE: another view - anecdote >Self-defence in any way, shape, or form seems to be distasteful to >many Canadians (read: sheep who believe the gov't will always look >after them), so trying to make women's self-defence will not likely >do us any good. I live on the edge of a little subdivision 45 km east of Ottawa, with a farm as my neighbour on one side. Last night at 10:10 we went out to see guests off and heard blood-curdling screams coming from the direction of the farmhouse (BTW, the kindly old farmer has a scuzzy son who has equally savoury friends). I got my big Mag-Light, two German Shepards and a Gerber (Elliott and Keith may find my .38 Super conspicuous in its absence) and went over to check it out while my wife called the police. By the time I got over to the area the shrieking had ended. There were no signs of anyone besides a couple of owls sitting on hay bales. I headed home without incident. At 11:30 the police phoned to see if the screaming had stopped yet (sort of reminiscent of police handling of complaints from Jeffrey Dahlmer's neighbours). The officer's theory was that it was probably a fox in distress: they are supposed to emit a raspy feminine shriek. He's probably right. However, it would have been nice to have someone around who doesn't believe there is any reason for Canadian civilians to have firearms for self-protection, while we waited 80 minutes for the police to call back in response to a report of a woman screaming. -- Dave Bartlett | ak409@freenet.carleton.ca Ontario, Canada | DAVID.BARTLETT@f125.n163.z1.fidonet.org | 613-443-0749 (voice) ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ Topic No. 9 Date: Mon, 08 Aug 1994 15:16:34 +0600 From: Harry Davis To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: More Constitutional Focus Message-ID: <9408082116.AA13211@orion.sal> Date: 08-06-94 (20:36) Number: 12701 of 12710 (Refer# NONE) To: HARRY DAVIS ] From: THOMAS JUNKER Subj: A constitutional focus Read: 08-06-94 (21:34) Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE Conf: Main Board (0) Read Type: MAIL FOR YOU (+) -=> Quoting Harry Davis to All <=- HD> Subject: A Constitutional Focus HD> I subscribed to cdn-firearms because I thought that I would learn from HD> the experiences and responses of our Canadian associates. That is, in HD> fact, the case, a most welcome development. The contact has also HD> reinforced in me the conviction, long held, that much of our concern, HD> discussion, action, perhaps even belief, is focused on the "small HD> things" and not on the heart of the matter. I'm using the word "our" to HD> embrace both Canadian and U.S. interests. You're right about quibbling over the minor issues. You're including extraneous irrelevancies when you count the Canadians in, though. It's a completely different issue for them, and the cultural and Constitutional foundations are totally independent and largely unrelated. HD> Perhaps I should think of HD> them as North American interests, if you will allow me to exclude HD> Mexico from "North American." You may *certainly* exclude Mexico, as it has not a shred of the foundations of English common law nor the concept that sovereignty originates in the individual. Mexico functions on the Roman civil law model, where power originates with the state, and such privileges as are graciously granted to citizens are what pass for rights. HD> Put another way, the issue is constitutional rather than personal. It is actually extra-Constitutional, pre-Constitutional, since the right was considered to exist and was widely acknowledged before the Constitution was drafted, in the same class as the right to pursue a trade or profession, or the right to travel on the public highways. HD> Why do we not frame the argument and the conflict in these terms? Because we're stupid, lazy, and ignorant. Really. HD> Why do we tend to view our responsibilities as intimidating politicians Perhaps because the most effective way to get a politician's attention is to hold fire to his political feet. The origins of this country were not had in going, hat in hand, to petition and beg politicians for consideration. HD> Perhaps because there isn't a real conviction in the matter. HD> Perhaps many of us are just trying to hang on to enjoyable personal HD>iterests and hobbies. Bingo! I remember trying to get a devoted deer hunter friend to join the NRA... he scoffed, said he didn't want his name on a list, and said that if things got so that bad, he'd hang onto his guns stock first, finger on the trigger. I really doubt it, though. I'm quite sure he will be among the wimps who does nothing, and waits until it is way too late. HD> Maybe the phrase "freedom from the oppressive power of government" HD> seems a bit too churchy. No, it is too intellectual for today's man of action. If people today spent 1/10th the effort they spend on tracking and studying NFL action, and instead looked into the history of the founding of the U.S., read the writings of the figures of the times, and caught the passion of the fight for freedom, they'd be 1000 times better prepared to defend and preserve American freedom in the 1990's. Is this likely? No... bread an circuses, bread and circuses.... HD> What about Canada? What about Canada? It has virtually none of the roots the U.S. has, an none of the rebel mentality that created this country and affects our culture to this day. If the Canadians are told next week that they have to have their number tattooed on their foreheads, they will line up to have it done before the deadline. Very few Canadians understand in thei ut why quite a few Americans are so passionate about individual liberty and limited government. With as much trouble as we have trying to keep these issues clear, with our heritage, with so many undeniably clear writings of the figures of the era of Independence, the Canadians, who were handed their independence on a platter by the Queen, with no lasting heritage of stubborn resistance and rebellion, are lost in the dark without a candle. HD> I haven't the foggiest idea of the fate of Canada. What do you think. I think that Canada will strangle itself in creeping socialism, while President Billary Clinton tries to race down that same road and beat Canada to the finish line. Passengers, anyone? HD> Is the constitutional aspect so debased or eroded that the effort HD> isn't worth it? Canada never had it. Its Constitution is very weak, and very ambiguous in matters clearly stated in our Constitution. Canada won its independence in the tired and dispirited wake of the British loss of the American colonies, in an act of lethargic resignation by the crown. There was no passion, there were no ordinary people forced by circumstances to become towering figures of history. Canada didn't pass through an entire generation of time spent in danger, encitement, political discourse of the most profound nature, and mortal combat against occupying armies and mercenaries. Our own Constitutional heritage *is* quite debased *and* eroded, and it's a good question whether or not it's worth the effort to try and restore it. A positive sign is that people so young that they can't remember life without Social Security, withholding, Medicare and Medicaid, interstate highways, and the war on drugs, are emerging as vocal and passionate advocates of individual liberty and the principles on which this country was founded. Ten, twenty years ago there were few voices where now there is a chorus. It's inexplicable, but it's happening. Whether it will be enough, whether it will grow to become a political force, I don't know. Time will tell, but there seems to be a storm brewing that few politicians are going to weather well. HD> One of my personal concerns is that this whole process will take so HD> long I will have forgotten where I buried the guns! Always remember to say that so they won't have an excuse to get a search warrant after the next five "anti-crime" bills have passed! ----- End Included Message ----- I deleted sections that seems to be mostly U.S.-centric, since this is supposed to be CDN-firearms. The other people can get elsewhere.... ------------------------------ End of CDN-FIREARMS Digest 78 *****************************