From: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V4 #779 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Sender: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Errors-To: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Cdn-Firearms Digest Friday, May 31 2002 Volume 04 : Number 779 In this issue: Culture of Safety, just in case Re: dues paying - voting members Fw: Kennel Etiquette If you have a Question Re: Comedians RE: Rick, can you spell L-A-W-S-U-I-T? Re: Rick's epistle. Re: Rick's epistle ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 23:20:16 -0600 (CST) From: j galt Subject: Culture of Safety, just in case Buried alive under government regulations Expensive and often silly rules play on our fears -- just in case Michael Campbell Vancouver Sun Thursday, May 30, 2002 Move over health care, education, jobs and children. The queen bee of motherhood issues has got to be safety. Scare the hell out of somebody and we're all ears. Toss your marketing books away and simply remember that safety sells. Of course, many individuals, companies and special interest groups are way ahead of us on that one. There's environmental, financial, personal, health and family related scares and each one comes with its special prescription for protection. In one 10-minute period while driving Tuesday I was told that general practitioners closing their offices threatened my personal safety. I was told that the whole earth was at risk if the Kyoto accord wasn't signed. I was told that the comparatively high wages paid unionized ferry workers was about passenger safety. I was told that new super tampons would keep me safe and dry just before I was told I needed a two-way voice burglar alarm to keep me safe from intruders. By the time I was home I wanted to bolt the doors and bring out the bazooka just in case. The key words being "just in case." Given that just about everything scares us, you can make a preventative sell for almost any good or service and we'll buy into it. Get a cell phone for your teen "just in case" of emergency. Put it beside the earthquake kit just in case the big one comes. Stock up on clean water just in case and, of course, buy disability insurance just in case. It's no different in the realm of public debate. In The True Believer, social philosopher Eric Hoffer observed that fear and hatred are the most unifying agents. "Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a good but never without belief in a devil." Perhaps that explains why the rhetoric is perpetually over the top on major issues. Somebody is always willing to yell "fire!", "immigrants!", "multinationals!", "frankenfood!" or "environmental disaster!" and, of course, they have the prescription for safety. Governments play right into this fear fest and always stand ready to build a bureaucracy to regulate ourselves to safety. Between 1975 and 1999 federal and provincial governments published 505,000 pages of regulations designed to protect us. Last year, a Fraser Institute study estimated that government regulations cost each one of us $3,425. The best thing about the safety argument is that you can't in most cases determine if the precautions worked. Were many ladder-related accidents prevented because we force manufacturers to bear the cost (which are passed on to consumers) of print warnings detailing the dangers of putting a six-meter ladder on a chair? How many uncomfortable trips to the hospital did we prevent by warning people not to eat Preparation H? If doctors closed their offices for a week, we have no way of knowing to what degree our individual health is affected. And even if the precautions don't work it just means we didn't do enough. Every expense and every measure can be rationalized because, as we all know, you can never be too safe. © Copyright 2002 Vancouver Sun ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 23:23:13 -0600 (CST) From: "Paul Chicoine" Subject: Re: dues paying - voting members Rick Lowe is quite correct in asserting that members should not leave their freedom of speech at the NFA door. Another question deserving an answer centres upon those who are actually making the decisions. Since Peter Kearns has tried to impress us with the wealth of his insider knowledge I'll put it to him. Heaven forbid The Pres would lower himself to field such banal questions. * Which(if any) of the presently serving NFA executives and or directors have ACTUALLY been Elected---with REAL BALLOTS to real members and those ballots returned--not appointments or acclamations? *Can actual returned ballots be produced as proof/records if someone was to ask? on the issue of dues: In your last major diatribe, I guess was supposed to be a swan song, you wrote (among many other things): "So brethren, you may take your choice, say wise things and fight among yourselves, for "yer 'umble servant" is no longer interested in following, (or engaging in) the antics of a power hungry bunch of incompetents, (both sides,) who are lying to their supporters, and with holding the truth from you. As of now I am unsubscribing from the NFA Member Digest and the Canadian Firearms Digest, and demanding that the NFA return my membership fee, as they did not provide the services and support that I contracted them to by paying and joining." Did you ever get your money back? An interesting question since at least 2 lifetime members have been turfed from the association. Do they get their money back? Finally a question for the moderator. Mr. Lowe asked if Mr. Kearns would re post his last "farewell post" the one in which he trashed just about everyone. Just so happens I have a copy of it. Does protocol demand Mr. K do the honours or could this "umble servant" post the article in question. It is an interesting reversal of opinion - to say the least. __________ Paul Chicoine Illegitimi non Carborundum Non Assumsit Contract, All Rights Reserved, Without Prejudice. _________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 23:25:30 -0600 (CST) From: "Tom Empey" Subject: Fw: Kennel Etiquette Submitted--Not yet published - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Empey" To: "TOR. SUN" Cc: "CAL. SUN" ; "EDM. SUN" ; "OTT. SUN" ; "WPG. SUN" Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 7:15 PM Subject: Kennel Etiquette Editor Picture, if you will, my team of sled dogs, all guilty of taking various bowel movements on neighbours' lawns. Let us call the dogs "Alphonso", "Art", "Don", "Denis" and "Lawrence". Rather than clean up the excrement described previously, I decide to take a page from the Jean Chretien Canine Ethics book. I denied the dogs had perpetrated any fecal deeds until the neighbours came up with video of the "dumpings". At this point, I claimed the dogs were only doing their job and it was part of "the normal operation" of this kennel. Pressure mounting, I called in my personal veterinarian and he cleared them all of any wrongdoing and stated that dog droppings were, in fact, actually beneficial to the soil but that maybe "Art" had sinned more than once. Forced to act, I made some tough moves. I shipped "Alphonso" to a quarantine kennel far away; "Don", being one of my favourites, was put in a smaller cage; "Denis" had to be muzzled for his own good; "Art" unfortunately, had to be put to sleep to make the neighbours happy; and I'm still watching "Lawrence" closely. OOPS!...have to run! Some of the other dogs are sneaking through holes inthe fence. T. Empey Belleville, Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 23:27:15 -0600 (CST) From: Jim Hinter Subject: If you have a Question Mr. Preston Manning once said, "If you hear something you don't like, before you comment on it, or pass it on, first go to the source". In the NFA, if you have a question, the telephone number is (403) 640-1110 for the National Office, and (780) 439-1394 for the legal office. Jim Hinter National President National Firearms Association ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 00:08:02 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: Comedians Peter Cronhelm wrote: > **If you read the actual words that Peter wrote and don't > attempt to read between the lines you will note Kearns says: > > "Canadian Firearms Journal yet? I handed out a bunch of > them (refering to the CFJ) on Saturday to > members who had received the insipid last issue, and they > complained! (refering to the CFJ) They > complained that they have to destroy the magazine (refering > to the CFJ) to use the membership > application on the back page! I think we should commend the > editor for > putting out a first class publication (refering to the CFJ) > so soon after the association was > placed back into the hands of the membership." > > **This entire paragraph talks about the Canadian Firearms > Journal. It starts with the CFJ and ends with the CFJ. > Kearns is talking entirely about the CFJ. His only comment > in reference to the GOF created PB is that it was > "insipid". I wrote and assembled this CFJ and I don't take > offense to what Kearns says so why should you? Please, > please please don't make me have to explain the grammar that > applies here. Well, I'll be the first to admit when I make a mistake, and I agree that Peter's words can be interpreted the way you present them. Even so, they were poorly written, and poorly put together, since you can interpret them my way as well: "I handed out a bunch of them on Saturday to members who had received the insipid last issue, and they complained!" This seems to imply that they were complaining about the insipid last issue. "They complained that they have to destroy the magazine to use the membership application on the back page!" This seems to imply that they complained about the membership application on the back of the insipid last issue (since, above, that's what they seemed to be complaining about) "I think we should commend the editor for putting out a first class publication so soon after the association was placed back into the hands of the membership." If the people were complaining about the *current* issue of CFJ, why is Peter commending the editor? Shouldn't he be telling him to pull up his socks and do something about the application form? This commendation only serves to reinforce the impression that the complaints were about the "insipid last issue". The whole point behind comminucating is being able do to so clearly. > > You fabricated this "myth" of a substandard, insipid Point Blank and tried to > > trump up complaints about something that had been going on long before the GOF > > arrived by laying it at their feet. > > > Myth? MYTH? Did you actually look at that piece of crap? Well, if it wasn't a myth, then the only thing that the people were complaining about was the application form on the back of the CFJ, and the "insipid last issue" had nothing to do with anything, except Peter K. getting his digs in. It only served to cloud the issue. > It was horrible, they couldn't even get the motto at the > bottom of the front page correct and things only got worse > from there. The pictures, what few of them there were, were > tiny, dark and near impossible to see. The colour was > washed out in some places and too bright in others, > sometimes on the same page. There were hanging sentences > and widows and the whole thing looked cramed in and > amatuerish. How big do you want pictures to be? There is something to be said for economy, and when you have gargantuan pictures to offset minimal text, I'd say you have a problem. I didn't notice much wrong with the colour pictures, and except for one full page ad, there was only one colour picture per page, so I don't see how there could be differing quality on the same page. Yes, they got the motto wrong, and there were a couple of hanging sentences, but one might argue that "amateurish" information is better than no information at all. > > > And you still haven't explained what was "insipid" about it. > > > It sucked pure and simple. Around the office we call it the > "Death Issue" cause the front cover looks like something out > of a graveyard. So, you disagree with their choice of cover photo. Maybe that's all they had to go with? Don't you appreciate an early morning mist through the trees? Not everything can be flowers and sunshine you know. Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 00:17:22 -0600 (CST) From: Peter Kearns Subject: RE: Rick, can you spell L-A-W-S-U-I-T? Peter Kearns wrote: Rick Lowe printed the following slander, and I am delighted to reply to such a SLIMY accusation. <> Peter Kearns wrote: Comrade Lowe bases his slimy attack on a piece written by another "genius," (I think his name is Bruce.) Bruce alleged that the NFA kept me on some kind of chain because they had a deal whereby they funded my litigation in exchange for a percentage. Bruce and Rick are a pair of liars, (albeit inventive ones.) Sue me boys, I just defamed you in print! The NFA has never, and will never fund any of my legal actions. The NFA has supplied legal expertise in the "Dealer Challenge," in the form of David Tomlinson doing legal research, and he will appear as an expert, (and unpaid,) witness. Dave appeared as an expert witness in Montreal a few years ago and charged me nothing. I paid his airfare and expenses, so "gentlemen" that cost the NFA nothing.... All of my other cases are directly funded by me, and I will be the only beneficiary of any monies resulting from my financial losses that resulted from the actions of the feds. If I choose to donate any money to the NFA after the dust settles, or to PETA, or the Coalition for Gin Control, or any other association, that will be my choice at that time, and I don't need any direction from a pair of chumps on how to do that. I ADVISE YOU ALL TO CAREFULLY READ LOWE'S SLIMY ATTEMPT TO SMEAR BOTH ME AND THE NFA, ABOVE. NOTE HOW HE CAREFULLY TRIES TO WORD HIS STATEMENTS TO PROTECT HIMSELF FROM A LAWSUIT. (RICK I WOULDN'T BOTHER, BECAUSE FINANCIALLY YOU SIMPLY AREN'T WORTH IT FROM MY POINT OF VIEW.) For Rick and Bruce. I will forward your statements to my lawyer for review tomorrow. I can't be bothered personally to seek damages from you clowns, but you may have noticed, you also defamed the NFA....... If my lawyer advises that there are adequate grounds to litigate against you two clowns, then I WILL PERSONALLY FUND THEIR ACTION FOR RESULTING FINANCIAL DAMAGES AGAINST YOU............. BOTH. I guess you didn't expect that did you? So, tell me again genii..... How does the NFA control me by funding my legal actions? Regards, Peter Simon says: THIS MESSAGE POSTED TO NFA MEMBER DIGEST FOR MEMBERS COMMENTS. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 00:18:01 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: Rick's epistle. Peter Kearns wrote: > > It seems that Rick Lowe is unwilling to answer a very simple question, but > uses half a digest issue to dodge a direct question to establish his > credibility. Rick are you now, or have you ever been a member of the NFA? > Simple question isn't it? I believe the answer is "NO." I question how > much you actually do know about what went on, or if as it seems, you are > simply parroting the same stuff the other internet commando's write. > (chuckle.) > > You ask who on the MAC has a knowledge of accounting? The MAC Chairman > Randy Coombes is a Chartered Accountant. (Ever hear the phrase "crash and > burn RicK?) As I said in a recent posting about Bruce's comments, I do > enjoy a good laugh, so I will certainly have one about somebody who is > pathetically trying to hang an "audit" label on something that they then go > on to describe as a consultation. The more you twist and turn the tighter > the rope around your neck becomes.......... (chuckle.) > > Regarding your questions about who selected the MAC and others that were > clearly designed to sling a little mud, I suggest you first consider buying > a membership in the NFA to demonstrate you are REALLY dedicated to > protecting the interests of the membership, and shooters across Canada. > Rick, you really can't play, if you are too damn cheap to pay. Last item. > You claim all sorts of knowledge about what really went on within the NFA > without being a member, and without, (as some of us did,) reviewing the > actual evidence. (chuckle.) > > As I said, I really do enjoy a good laugh. I love reading the garbage that > emanates from "internet commando's," who spout their own version of "facts" > and don't believe they have to do any work, or put out any money to support > the fight against our unjust firearms laws. But then, I guess if you can > spend all day writing long and detailed diatribes using just your > imagination, then you must believe your contribution is valid. If suggest > that if we listen to Rick, and do what he does, we will be reading his > epistles a few years down the road complaining about how we all lost our > firearms despite him working so hard and desperately to protect us, (and > him blaming everybody else.) Rick, I enjoy reading your stuff, because as > I said, I enjoy a really good laugh. > Peter > > Simon says: Rick should have asked almost any Alberta or BC NFA member, > and they would possibly have told him the MAC Chairman is a Chartered > Accountant. (By the way Rick, a CA enjoys a hell of a lot more respect > than CMA's and CPA's. (CA's actually know all the legal requirements > because they do real audits.) Exit lauging! I notice, Peter, that you only bothered to answer one of Rick's several pertinent questions, while attempting to ridicule him several times. I guess you were too busy laughing to come up with anything more substantial. This is the kind of treatment some of us have come to expect from the Nabobs at the NFA HQ and their hangers-on. I don't think it's Rick's credibility that's in question here, Peter - it's yours. If you can't answer the questions put to you, just say so. That will garner you alot more respect than making personal attacks against the people asking valid questions. Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 01:27:24 -0600 (CST) From: Rick Lowe Subject: Re: Rick's epistle Peter Kearns said: > It seems that Rick Lowe is unwilling to answer a very simple question, but > uses half a digest issue to dodge a direct question to establish his > credibility. Rick are you now, or have you ever been a member of the NFA? Ahhhh, actually I did answer that question Peter - you replied by threatening to sue me, remember. And the answer was, yes, I once was a member of the NFA - until I got ripped off. Jesus, is there anybody left in Western Canada over the age of 18 that you haven't threatened to sue in the last decade? You should learn to reach for a Valium instead of your lawyer every time somebody offends Your Grace. HOWEVER, for somebody running their mouth about how somebody was unwilling to answer questions - and no, we're not talking about Jim Hinter here - you are quite a roll model. Your rant does anything BUT answer questions you were asked. Like: Did or did not Jim Hinter improperly transfer $5000 from the NFA to Shop NFA? Did or did not Jim Hinter fail to ever file a GST tax return for Shop NFA? Did or did not Jim Hinter and the VeePee fail to have accounted for $500 expense advances months later, at the time of the management audit/review? Did or did not Jim Hinter as contracted manager of Shop NFA fail to ensure that T4's were all properly issued. Did the Members Advisory Inquisition look at all involved in the issue - or just the Gang of Whatever - when they were looking at who was to get the boot? And did or did not you storm out of this forum a few short weeks ago, cursing Hinter and practically everybody else and calling down a plague on their progeny for all time? > Simple question isn't it? I believe the answer is "NO." Wrong again. Now why don't you come up with some answers to the questions above? Hinter doesn't have the guts to answer those questions in public, and you seem to have the same problem. They're simple questions, right? > much you actually do know about what went on, or if as it seems, you are > simply parroting the same stuff the other internet commando's write. I'm asking questions nobody including you wants to answer, Peter. If none of it is true, just stop giggling long enough to say none of it is true. > You ask who on the MAC has a knowledge of accounting? The MAC Chairman > Randy Coombes is a Chartered Accountant. (Ever hear the phrase "crash and > burn RicK?) As I said in a recent posting about Bruce's comments, I do Excellent. We can all look forward to him signing his name and credentials to a proper financial audit done of NFA and Shop NFA. > Regarding your questions about who selected the MAC and others that were > clearly designed to sling a little mud, I suggest you first consider buying Well, that's all very nice Peter, but it still doesn't answer the question - did both sides get input into who made up the Membership Advisory Inquisition, or did Hinter and company do all the choosing? > Rick, you really can't play, if you are too damn cheap to pay. Last item. After my last financial transaction with the NFA where DAT wouldn't even bother to acknowledge letters requesting I get what he cashed my check for - until I told him we were headed to small claims court and a police complaint - it will be a long while before you get more money out of me. However, seeing as how the NFA runs around boasting that they represent all firearms owners in Canada - which includes me - and seeing as how what the NFA does then rubs off on all firearms owners, I think I do have a right to play. And your opinion of whether I should or not really doesn't matter to me at all. You've changed sides so often on this whole issue I'm surprised you're not dizzy from spinning around. Hmmmm... perhaps that's the root of your problem... > You claim all sorts of knowledge about what really went on within the NFA > without being a member, and without, (as some of us did,) reviewing the > actual evidence. (chuckle.) About the only thing I've made a definitive statement about is I'm convinced that Hinter is utterly unsuited to be in a leadership position. Other than that, I'm just asking questions and asking you to correct me as to whether they're right or wrong. You're doing a lot of chuckling - but you don't seem to want to step up to the plate and answer some of those simple questions you were talking about. > As I said, I really do enjoy a good laugh. Too bad you don't enjoy answering questions equally as well. > imagination, then you must believe your contribution is valid. If suggest > that if we listen to Rick, and do what he does, we will be reading his Answer the questions and they'll go away, Peter. > Accountant. (By the way Rick, a CA enjoys a hell of a lot more respect > than CMA's and CPA's. (CA's actually know all the legal requirements > because they do real audits.) Exit lauging! Excellent. A full and detailed audit of the NFA and Shop NFA, where people can see what exactly was spent to purchase what on expenses, disbursements, etc will be welcomed by the ordinary shmucks who send their money in every year. In closing, I didn't hear any further references to mythical members who were censored on the NFA elist - so I gather you do remember now that not so very long ago you were one of them, correct? ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V4 #779 ********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Moderator's e-mail address: mailto:acardin33@shaw.ca List owner: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca FAQ list: http://www.magma.ca/~asd/cfd-faq1.html and http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Faq/cfd-faq1.html Web Site: http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/homepage.html FTP Site: ftp://teapot.usask.ca/pub/cdn-firearms/ CFDigest Archives: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/~ab133/ or put the next command in an e-mail message and mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca get cdn-firearms-digest v04.n192 end (192 is the digest issue number and 04 is the volume) To unsubscribe from _all_ the lists, put the next five lines in a message and mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca unsubscribe cdn-firearms-digest unsubscribe cdn-firearms-alert unsubscribe cdn-firearms-chat unsubscribe cdn-firearms end (To subscribe, use "subscribe" instead of "unsubscribe".) If you find this service valuable, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to the freenet we use: Saskatoon Free-Net Assoc., 1702 20th St. West, Saskatoon SK S7M OZ9 Phone: (306) 382-7070 modem lines: (306) 956-3700 and (306) 956-3701 Home page: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/ These e-mail digests are free to everyone, and are made possible by the efforts of countless volunteers. Permission is granted to copy and distribute this digest as long as it not altered in any way.