From: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V5 #891 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 Thursday, March 20 2003 Volume 05 : Number 891 In this issue: CMAJ editorial response link EFSoSRldg My letter to the MPs RFC Ottawa: Firearms Act Fails the 3 Great Tests Editorial: Other Views Vote against gun registry at own risk, PM warns MPs: $59M spending request: Chretien moves to block gun revolt ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 06:19:30 -0600 (CST) From: Boris Gimbarzevsky Subject: CMAJ editorial response link In poking around today, I found that the CMAJ is now available online, and the site has the capability to accept responses to published articles. The most relevent article for this group is: http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/168/4/389 which is the assinine editorial that Mike Ackerman and I have fired off letters about. There doesn't appear to be any restriction on who can post responses with the proviso that all responses are first reviewed by an editor. Links on how to post a response are present on the site, and I think it would be appropriate for individuals on this list to post their opinions of the editorial I refer to above. My letter has been slightly modified from what I originally submitted to this list, and the modifications might be of interest to people who are interested in responding. I had the letter reviewed by a physician friend of mine who has had some experience in medical politics in the BCMA and he proposed one change which, in his opinion, would result in the letter being much more likely published. The original paragraph I wrote was: "Over half of individuals who use firearms to murder have previous criminal records and this population should be targetted rather than the average hunter or target shooter who is highly unlikely to utilize firearms in a criminal manner. What is not mentioned in the CMAJ editorial that even the simple concept of targetting groups with high likelyhood of misusing firearms has been abandoned. In 1988 aboriginals made up 2.8% of the Canadian population, but accounted for 17.6% of the homicides. 1988 was the last year I could find that Statistics Canada broke down homicide statistics by race and the aboriginal homicide rate was 14.2/100,000 whereas the non-aboriginal homicide rate was 1.8/100,000 (5). Were rational epidemiologic principles utilized, the aboriginal population would have been the most targetted to eliminate individuals who might criminally misuse firearms. Aboriginals are exempted from taking the firearms licensure examinations that all other gun owners are require d to take, and the federal government supplies many native bands in the country with free ammunition regardless of whether they have a PAL/POL. This is analagous to requiring periodic mandatory HIV testing for everyone except declared homosexuals." The submitted version of the paragraph had the following ending: "Aboriginals are exempted from taking the firearms licensure examinations that all other gun owners are required to take, and the federal government supplies many native bands in the country with free ammunition regardless of whether they have a PAL/POL. If the CMAJ truly believes that controlling firearms saves lives, then why have they not widely publicized the lack of firearms controls for aboriginals which can only be considered genocidal?." His reasoning was as follows: homosexuals might be offended by the first ending I wrote, and it would slay too many sacred cows in one paragraph. Despite the obvious fact to every practicing physician that 99% of the HIV+ individuals seen in their practices are male, the official doctrine is that HIV risk is equal for heterosexuals. This seems rather queer to me, but I occasionally do change what I write, especially when my friend brought up the concept of genocide. This was a novel concept, and maybe someone can do a better job at expressing the ideas than I have done. The CMAJ editorial posits that restrictions on firearms will directly affect death rates from firearms. They would likely accept the Stats Canada homicide rates for aboriginals at face value. They would thus have to be appalled by the current federal governmnent policy, and this could easily be seen as genocidal. Since, in their view, guns are so dangerous, giving them to aboriginals with no controls could be seen as a calculated effort to increase their death rate to offset the social problems caused by their greater birth rate than the non-aboriginal population and thus genocidal. Not my idea, but very elegant in the context of this editorial. I'm sure that others on this list can easily demonstrate the illogic present in the CMAJ editorial. Boris Gimbarzevsky ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 06:20:22 -0600 (CST) From: "Tom Falls" Subject: EFSoSRldg Jim Hill writes: "ND" I have either not seen this term used before or was not paying attention. Negligent discharge is so much more appropriate than "AD" especially in the cases of police discharging firearms in locker rooms and washrooms. Thanks to Tony Falls but I still have not figured out the " EFSoSRldg". Jim: EFSoSRldg: Elmer Fudd School of Shotgun Re-loading. I type with one finger, and although I try to rotate my fingers through "the coal face" as it were, I still get a case of the lazies now and then. Hence, the occaisional unorthodox abreviations. Sorry 'bout that. Tom Falls ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 06:23:32 -0600 (CST) From: Michael Ackermann Subject: My letter to the MPs My letter to the MPs was blocked. I got a "Communication Problem" message. How convenient for the Liebernazis. http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/senmemb/house/members/MemberList.asp?Language=E&Parl=37&Ses=1&Sect=hoccur I'm going to start phoning them my self. I'll take the top 10 from the commons list Abbott to Beaumier, inclusive. Who'll take Belair to Breitkreuz? Brison to Chamberlain? Etc. etc. Please offer to call a block of 20, and post your offer here. Just 16 of us could cover the whole list! [Moderator's Note: Use the Government of Canada Toll Free Number at 1-866-599-4999; ask for your selected MP's office. BNM] - -- M.J. Ackermann, MD (Mike) President, St. Mary's Shooters Association Box 3, RR 1, 4132 Sonora Rd. Sherbrooke, NS Canada B0J 3C0 902-522-2172 My email: mikeack@ns.sympatico.ca My Bio: http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/mikeack/mikeack.htm SMSA URL: www.smsa.ca "Hope for the best, but plan for the worst". ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 06:30:22 -0600 (CST) From: Al Dorans Subject: RFC Ottawa: Firearms Act Fails the 3 Great Tests RFC Ottawa/FED UP Canada Protecting Canadian Freedoms ............................... Kate Milloy, Editor The Hill Times Ottawa, Ontario Dear Kate, March 20, 2003 Thanks kindly to the Hill Times for publishing the recent article by Stambury and Smithies on the history of the Firearms Act in Canada. Perhaps you might recall previous conversations we have had, when you published articles that I had submitted to the Hill Times. Given the raging political controversy over Bill C-68: The Firearms Act and whether to stop, or grant, further funding, I have a seminal article, of similar but lesser length, that should be highly informative for your intended audience. On behalf of Canada's 7 million responsible firearms owners, I submit it herein for your consideration. Kind regards, Professor Al Dorans Director, RFC Ottawa Chairman, FED UP Canada ......................................................................... Firearms Act Fails the 3 Great Tests On June, 13, 1995 former Reform Leader Preston Manning made the astute prediction in the House of Commons: "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..." Constitutionality "A recent poll indicated that 53% of Canadians could not name even one of their Constitutional rights or Charter freedoms. Therefore, 1. According to Canadian Alliance Justice Critic MP Garry Breitkreuz, Bill C-68: The Firearms Act violates our constitutional and fundamental right to be innocent until proven guilty; our right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure; our right to private property; our right against self-incrimination (to remain silent); our right to legal counsel; our right to be represented by our MP; our right to be treated equally before the law; our right to privacy; and our right to freedom of association. 2. According to Political Science Professor Ted Morton, University of Calgary, C-68 violates 12 of our Charter freedoms: Right to Liberty; Right to Security of the Person; Right to Procedural Fairness; Rights Against Unreasonable Search and Seizure; Right to Privacy; Right to be Presumed Innocent; Right Against Arbitrary Detention; Right to Counsel Upon Arrest or Detention; Right to Freedom of Expression; Right to Bear Arms; Right to Property; and Equality Rights. 3. According to Privacy Commissioner George Radwanski, C-68 violates all seven of the Privacy Rights of Canadians; 4. According to Information Commissioner John Reid, C-68 violates the Fundamental Information Rights of Canadians. Consequently, Canada's Recreational Firearms Community (RFC) supports the position that the Firearms Act must be repealed and replaced with reasonable firearms legislation that reduces crime, saves lives, contributes to public safety and is cost effective. Effectiveness Deputy Prime Minister Herb Gray verified that despite 64 years and $640 million, there was no evidence, whatsoever, that Canada's handgun registration system had reduced crime or saved lives. Similarly, Commissioner Nicholson of the RCMP confirmed that he had no evidence, at all, that gun registration reduced crime or saved lives. Therefore, the Liberal supposition that C-68 contributes to public safety is absolutely false. Question. Why should Canadians repeat the gun registration stupidity with rifles and shotguns when this money could be used to save precious lives? Wherever gun registration has been implemented, it has not worked, including Canada. Wherever gun registration has been implemented, confiscation has followed, including Canada. Gun owners have just cause to fear this legislation. During the last 300 years, there is a clear historical pattern for establishing totalitarian regimes and creating police states, where only the police and military have firearms. 1) License gun owners to identify who owns firearms; 2) Register guns to determine the number, location and types of firearms; 3) Confiscate guns to leave civilians defenseless; 4) Commit cultural genocide on an unprotected citizenry. Examples of 1936 Nazi Germany, Rwanda, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Chile, Uganda, Russia and Cambodia make this pattern abundantly clear. It is disquieting to discover that the Canadian government has embarked on the first 3 steps toward a totalitarian state. The United Nations Index revealed that out of 170 countries, the 3 best countries in which to live are 1) Canada 2) USA 3) Norway. Another UN survey revealed that the 3 countries with the greatest number of firearms are 1) USA 2) Norway 3) Canada. This suggests that a strong relationship exists between the availability/civilian ownership of firearms and public safety. For 500 years Canada and the USA have survived remarkably well without needless gun owner licensing and needless gun registration. Cost effectiveness of C-68 needs to be considered. If only $1 were spent on C-68, it would have been a wasted loonie, because gun registration simply does not work. Additional monies being spent on C-68 are precious tax dollars being flushed down the drain. According to government Access to Information Requests, there is a 72% error rate for gun owner licensing. There is a 132% error rate for gun registration. Therefore, the gun registry is logically useless and unreliable for police purposes. C-68 is a $1 billion boondoggle. Right? Wrong! This is how it could exceed $10B. 1) Begin with the $640 million for the failed RCMP handgun registry experiment. 2) Add another $1 billion for C-68, 500 times over budget. ($1.64B) 3) Add 328 pages of additional costs hidden from the Auditor General, concealed from taxpayers and spread throughout various government departments by invoking cabinet secrecy. Reliable inside estimates place this figure at $2B higher. ($3.64B) 4) Add the costs of individual court cases where gun owners have vowed to challenge the government in court and to defend themselves. 5) Add the cost of numerous Supreme Court Challenges listed previously. 6) Add the cost of $6 billion each year in lost income from Canada's shooting sports industry. 7) Add the cost of a class action suit from 7 million gun owners whose hunting and shooting supplies have been declared worthless. How many Canadian lives has the Firearms Act cost? 60,000/year? Who is responsible? Democratic Consent of the Governed Only 200 Canadians out of 31 million know Canada's gun laws (Mauser and Buckner, 1997). Repeated and highly politicized, "junk science" government polls showing support for C-68 are fatally flawed because they sample poorly informed and misinformed citizens. In actual truth, 8 provinces and 3 territories, representing approximately 70% of the Canadian population, have officially gone on record as opposing the unjust Firearms Act. There are approximately 7 million gun owners and 21 million firearms in Canada. After 8 years, compliance with gun owner licensing is about 30%. Compliance with gun registration is about 30%. According to reporter Lorne Gunter, Edmonton Sun, "Bill C-68 is the greatest act of civil disobedience in the history of Canada." This is not the democratic consent of the governed. Firearms owners who complied did so out of sheer fear and intimidation. For no just cause, their government no longer trusted them with their own private property. They were threatened with a maximum penalty of 5 years in jail for failing to license themselves. They were intimidated with an additional maximum penalty of 10 years in jail for failing to register all their guns. For doing absolutely nothing, they are subject to 15 years in jail. In comparison, Bernard Lortie killed 3 people and wounded 11 others in the Quebec legislature with a machine gun that he stole from a military base. Lortie was released after serving 10 years. Thus, C-68 is a gross injustice. Liberal politicians have betrayed Canadians. Department of Justice bureaucrats have deceived the public. Special interest anti gun groups have misled voters with fraudulent information. These irresponsible politicians, bureaucrats and anti gunners should be fired. There has been a tremendous breakdown of trust between Canadian gun owners and the federal government. The Liberal propaganda machine, aided and abetted by a generally anti gun media, have indoctrinated Canadians into believing: THE BIG LIES. 1) Crime is on the rise in Canada. It is not. 2) Guns are inherently dangerous. They are not. Place one on a table and see when it does something bad. 3) Gun owners are a threat to society. Statistically, they are the safest citizens in Canada. 4) We are not after your handguns. (Basford, 1976) 5) C-68 will focus on criminals and not interfere with gun owners. (Rock). 6) Registration does not mean confiscation. (Rock) 7) C-68 will be scrapped if it ever reaches $150 million. (Rock) 8) Hackers will never break into the gun registry. (Rock) 9) The gun registry was the cornerstone of the Liberal Justice package all along when it was never mentioned in the Red Liberal Handbook. (Rock) 10) C-68 will cost $2 million. (Rock) C-68 is fatally flawed to the core and cannot be salvaged. Stop all funding, immediately. Repeal the Firearms Act, now. Professor Al Dorans Director, RFC Ottawa Chairman, FED UP Canada ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 06:32:12 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Editorial: Other Views PUBLICATION: Times Colonist (Victoria) DATE: 2003.03.20 EDITION: Final SECTION: Comment PAGE: A12 SOURCE: Ottawa Citizen - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Views - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Treasury Board President Lucienne Robillard just unveiled a new theory of responsible government. She told the House of Commons public accounts committee that the Chretien cabinet knew gun- registry costs were out of control in 1997, but MPs didn't ask the right questions the right way, so it was OK to hide the situation from them. In 1995, Reform MPs brought in a witness who warned the registry would cost $1 billion, and then-justice minister Allan Rock ridiculed him on the floor of the House. Alliance MP Garry Breitkreuz submitted more than 300 Access to Information requests in eight years. By Robillard's tortured logic, the government can hide information if MPs don't ask searching questions, and if they do ask, it doesn't count. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 06:33:31 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Vote against gun registry at own risk, PM warns MPs: $59M spending request: PUBLICATION: National Post DATE: 2003.03.20 EDITION: Toronto SECTION: Canada PAGE: A17 BYLINE: Bill Curry SOURCE: National Post, with files from The Canadian Press DATELINE: OTTAWA ILLUSTRATION: Black & White Photo: Kevin Frayer, The Canadian Press /Giovanni Interdonato checks out the scope on a hunting rifle in his gun shop in Toronto. Jean Chretien yesterday warned MPs to vote in favour of $59-million in additional funding for the federal gun registry or risk being kicked out of caucus. NOTE: bcurry@nationalpost.com - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vote against gun registry at own risk, PM warns MPs: $59M spending request: Chretien threatens to expel MPs who oppose funding - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OTTAWA - Jean Chretien warned Liberal MPs yesterday they could be expelled from caucus if they vote against a bill next week that would give another $59-million to the controversial national firearms program. In the weekly closed-door caucus meeting, the Prime Minister told MPs he considers the vote a matter of confidence in his government, meaning a loss could trigger a federal election. Mr. Chretien did not spell out specific consequences for those who vote against the government, but Liberal Whip Marlene Catterall told reporters such MPs could be kicked out of caucus. "I think that when Canadians elect a Liberal government, they expect us to fulfill the policies on which we ran, and that means that those people who ran on those policies and supported the gun registry in two elections are expected to support it," she said. One Liberal MP also said officials from the Prime Minister's Office reminded some dissidents an MP who is kicked out of caucus will not be able to run as a Liberal if there is a snap election. In December, MPs unanimously rejected a $72-million request for the program. The government had said that vote would be a matter of confidence, but changed its mind before the vote. Some Liberal MPs criticized the Prime Minister yesterday for making the new vote a matter of confidence, arguing it reinforces the notion MPs are only "rubber stamps" unable to influence the workings of government. Dan McTeague, an outspoken Liberal MP who supports the gun registry, nonetheless disagreed with the government's expulsion threat. "We know that there has been that heavy hand used in the past. I know there's a lot of people in my region in Toronto who are still miffed at the expulsion of [John] Nunziata," he said. "It's nice to say we campaigned on these things once, twice, three times ... but I don't think this will leave a very good taste in the mouths of Canadians if they know their Members of Parliament are subjected to that kind of response." The expulsion of long-time Liberal MP John Nunziata in 1997 for voting against the government over the GST is the only occasion when Mr. Chretien has used his power to kick an MP out of his caucus for opposing the government. Over the past year, dozens of Liberal MPs have voted against the government without consequence. Central Ontario MP Paul Steckle said he will vote against the government on Tuesday, but expressed frustration with the way the government is interpreting the backbench dissent. Mr. Steckle argued his vote will be a show of non-confidence in Martin Cauchon, the Justice Minister, for mishandling the file, not in the Liberal government. Mr. Steckle also predicted his Liberal colleagues are in for a rough ride at home should they approve the $59-million request. "Obviously when you're among your family of colleagues it's pretty easy to stand together, but it's when you have to go back home and face the electorate on a one-to-one basis and when you get called to a meeting where there's maybe 400 people and they take a different view than you do, it's pretty hard to win elections when the people are against you in a crowd like that," he said. Following yesterday's caucus meeting, Mr. Cauchon held an open briefing for Liberal MPs on improvements the government is making to the program. The meeting won over some MPs, including Julian Reed of Halton, Ont., who was one of the six MPs who met this week with Wayne Easter, the Solicitor-General, to express concerns with the program. "I feel that gun control is still valid and that we should forge ahead and make it work," Mr. Reed said. "We can correct the deficiencies, I think." Northern Ontario MP Ben Serre, who has opposed the gun registry since it was proposed in 1995, said the program will go ahead and his colleagues will approve the funding request on Tuesday. "I would suspect a few [MPs] will be absent, a few will vote against and the bill will be passed," he said. "I'm still against it. I still think it's a billion-dollar boondoggle. The policy of gun control per se is not wrong, but we had the wrong approach, we had the wrong people running it and the registry itself is a non-starter. It's not going to accomplish anything." The showdown came after a half-dozen dissidents circulated a letter this week urging their colleagues to challenge the "moral bankruptcy and failure of the Minister of Justice" by voting against the spending request. The letter was signed by MPs Roger Gallaway and Joe Comuzzi of Ontario and John Efford and Lawrence O'Brien of Newfoundland. They were joined by Senators Anne Cools and Herb Sparrow. None of the six spoke up at yesterday's meeting, colleagues said. But two others who did not sign the letter -- Mr. Steckle and his fellow Ontario MP Rose-Marie Ur -- took the floor to voice passionate opposition to continued funding for the registry. The registry has been under attack since December, when Sheila Fraser, the Auditor-General, delivered a damning report on cost overruns in the program. She estimated it will end up costing taxpayers $1-billion by the time it concludes its first decade in operation in 2005. The original estimate when the registry was established in 1995 was $2-million. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 06:34:08 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Chretien moves to block gun revolt NOTE: Versions of this article also appeared in: The Saskatoon Star Phoenix, The Ottawa Citizen, The Calgary Herald, The Kingston-Whig-Standard, The Edmonton Journal PUBLICATION: Times Colonist (Victoria) DATE: 2003.03.20 EDITION: Final SECTION: News PAGE: A10 BYLINE: Tim Naumetz SOURCE: CanWest News Service DATELINE: OTTAWA - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chretien moves to block gun revolt - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OTTAWA -- Prime Minister Jean Chretien took steps Wednesday to crush a caucus revolt against the federal gun registry, warning dissidents they will be expelled from the Liberal party if they side with the opposition next week in a Commons vote on $59 million in funding for the program. In an angry speech to the government caucus of MPs and senators, Chretien also held out the prospect of a snap election should the vote next Tuesday on supplementary estimates to pay current costs for the registry go down to defeat. Government whip Marlene Catterall told reporters after the stormy meeting that expulsion from caucus was "one of the possibilities" facing Liberal MPs who vote against the estimates and, if the estimates fail, an election would follow because it would be considered a vote of non-confidence in the government. "It's very clear that the prime minister feels that if he doesn't have the support of his caucus and the House of Commons on the matter of the registry, that this is a matter of confidence," said Catterall. While Catterall was not specific about the fate of Liberals who plan to vote against the government, Chretien sent them a direct message. An aide to the prime minister privately spoke with at least one, and possibly more, of six caucus ringleaders who have written all Liberal MPs and senators urging them to vote against funding for the registry. One of the ringleaders, Sarnia MP Roger Gallaway, did not want to say whether any of Chretien's officials spoke to him directly, but Gallaway told reporters Chretien's warnings to caucus show the government is using intimidation in an attempt to keep the program running. "What we are now living in is a state where the only way the government can hang together is to intimidate its own members," said Gallaway, who declined to say whether he now plans to vote against the estimates. Liberal Senator Anne Cools, who orchestrated the rebellion with Gallaway, said the government is ruthlessly forcing MPs to ignore the wishes of constituents who oppose the firearms program. "What we're seeing here is a unilateral rule: 'vote as I say or else,"' said Cools. "What we are seeing, what I have seen before me is an exercise in ruthlessness, not parliamentary democracy." Gallaway and Cools, with the support of Liberal MPs John Efford, Lawrence O'Brien and Joe Comuzzi and Saskatchewan Senator Herbert Sparrow, distributed a five-page letter to caucus members, saying the firearms program should have been halted after the government agreed last December to reduce a request to Parliament for $72 million in supplementary funding to zero. The government made the decision after Auditor General Sheila Fraser disclosed the cost of the program was expected to balloon to $1 billion by 2005. The two Liberal rebels argued Wednesday Justice Minister Martin Cauchon, not backbenchers, should resign if the government loses next week's vote. "What's clear is, if you want to characterize it as a confidence matter, then it's a matter of confidence in the minister; it has nothing to do with the government," said Gallaway. Other MPs said the government has no choice but to continue with the firearms program, in part to ensure that the $800 million spent over the past eight years is not wasted. "We're not rubber stamps," said Winnipeg MP John Harvard. "This program has to be continued. It's necessary to move forward. We don't have a choice." To build support, the government held a briefing for MPs on the registry following the caucus meeting. Bill Baker, CEO of the Canadian Firearms Centre, and Al Goodall, chief firearms registrar, simulated instances in which the registry led police to the discovery of illegal guns in Montreal and Winnipeg. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V5 #891 ********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Moderator's e-mail address: mailto:akimoya@sprint.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., P.O. Box 1342, Saskatoon SK S7K 3N9 Phone: (306) 382-7070 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.