From: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest)
To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca
Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V8 #265
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, July 28 2005 Volume 08 : Number 265
In this issue:
Re: Hold up Mr. Moderator or Mr. Mills.
RE:Membership fees
Column: When all else fails blame the Americans
MP's voting information request
Re: : Lanark Landowners Association
Re: : Lanark Landowners Association
Re: lla unfocused?
Re: : Lanark Landowners Association
Re: A brief history of the NRA
Re: 'Joint' strike fighter
Re: : Lanark Landowners Association
Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V8 #264
Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V8 #264
Re: : Lanark Landowners Association
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:43:36 -0600 (CST)
From: "Bruce Mills" <akimoya@cogeco.ca>
Subject: Re: Hold up Mr. Moderator or Mr. Mills.
- ----- Original Message -----
From: paul chicoine <zuloo90@videotron.ca>
> sarcastic dressing down is exactly what you are doing here. Perhaps the
> submitter has a narrow definition of poaching but to start tossing around
> terms like "narrow minded" is crossing the threshold and becoming abusive.
Calling someone "narrow minded" is abusive? Get real!
Yours in Liberty,
Bruce
Hamilton
Ontario
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 18:15:22 -0600 (CST)
From: Christopher di Armani <christopher@diArmani.com>
Subject: RE:Membership fees
At 09:48 PM 2005.07.26, Ian Parkinson wrote:
>Would it be possible that CFEI could interest an Insurance company in
>providing Liability Insurance of the type promoted by the NFA without
>all the paper shenanigins. Many if not all range operators would love to
>have a real liability insurance package with all the documantation
>provided. This insurance I gather could provide a significant sum of
>oney to the CFEI and help keep memebership fees down??
From conversations I've had with people knowledgeable about how the
insurance game works, this is NOT a moneymaker for any of the associations
who have them in place for their members. The fee for insurance is exactly
that, the amount it costs the organization to insure a single member (or
family) under their policy. Everything collected for membership goes to the
insurance company, not the organization who offers the insurance to its
membership.
Yours in Liberty,
Christopher di Armani
christopher@diArmani.com
Our poison-tipped pens are greater than the mightiest of swords - diArmani.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 18:15:43 -0600 (CST)
From: Breitkreuz@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca, Garry - Assistant 1 <BreitG0@parl.gc.ca>
Subject: Column: When all else fails blame the Americans
When all else fails blame the Americans
By Brent Colbert (07/27/05)
http://www.americandaily.com/article/8446
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 21:11:16 -0600 (CST)
From: Christopher di Armani <christopher@diArmani.com>
Subject: MP's voting information request
Hello gang,
Does anyone know of any MP's who stated publicly they would not have voted
for the bill had they known the truth about the RCMP statistics used?
What I need is the MP's name, and where their statements were published so
I can track it down.
Thanks!
Yours in Liberty,
Christopher di Armani
christopher@diArmani.com
Our poison-tipped pens are greater than the mightiest of swords - diArmani.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 21:11:52 -0600 (CST)
From: Rick Lowe <ricklowe@telus.net>
Subject: Re: : Lanark Landowners Association
"Bruce Mills" <akimoya@cogeco.ca> wrote:
> Sure you do! Gophers are "wildlife", but you're free to shoot them
> at will. Up until recently, here in Ontario anyway, you could pretty
> much shoot wolves at will. They "belong" to everyone, too!
Simple Bruce.
People elect governments to, among other things, manage their natural
resources - including Crown land, deer, and gophers. Those elected
governments then pass legislation that establishes open seasons, bag
limits if any, what are vermin and what are not, etc.
If the majority of citizens those natural resources belong to didn't
agree with the natural resource management policies of the governments
they elected, then they would do something about it. The grizzly bear
issue here in BC was a swing issue in at least one riding I'm aware of,
as just one example of when people disagree over how their wildlife is
managed.
Unfortunately for the tiny minority who believe their beliefs, opinions,
conceptions are paramount, policy is not set by the minority, but rather
by the majority. And that is a good thing.
There is only one thing worse than the tyranny of the majority in an
electoral system of government. And that is the tyranny of the minority.
> Why should it be any different with deer, who "predate" upon the
> crops of farmers?
Simple again. There is this thing called a "fence". Farmers seem quite
capable of putting them up high enough to keep their cattle in and thus
protect them, or to keep their cattle out of their land containing
crops, but not quite high enough to keep the deer out.
Farmers are absolutely free to build a fence on their property as high
as necessary. They do not have the right to shoot deer who get on their
unfenced property any more than hunters have a right to shoot any
rancher's livestock that they find outside of the farmer's property
"predating" Crown resources.
Why don't farmers, homeowners, gardeners, etc not have the right to
shoot deer? Why don't hunters not have the right to shoot cows, horses,
etc that they find on Crown land? In fact, why doesn't Farmer A have
the right to shoot Farmer B's cow when he finds it on his land munching
his crops?
Because the majority of their fellow citizens have decided that's not
the way it's going to be. If their attitude towards this changes,
government will either enact their demands or they will elect people who
will if they feel strongly enough about it. Meanwhile, the situation
that exists is both the law and the rights of the various groups as
interpreted by the majority of your fellow citizens. It may be argued
that this is the tyranny of the majority, but it is one hell of a lot
better than defering to the tyranny of the minority.
> It would be different if the government lived up to its
> responsibility and issued the appropriate permits in a timely and
> effective manner, but they don't. That's the problem, not the
> farmers!
I could just as easily argue that the government isn't living up to its'
responsibility to protect natural resources by refusing to allow me to
shoot any livestock I find running loose on Crown land. And the
argument would be equally as ridiculous as yours.
The government of a province has no responsibility to allow you to shoot
wildlife because you refuse to put up an appropriate fence.
Furthermore, "the government" is very much the people of the province,
and apparently throughout Canada, the people of the province don't feel
some obligation on them to issue farmers who won't properly fence their
land permits to destroy wildlife. Or allow others to shoot livestock
found off the owners' property.
> Yes, they were - the right to defend their property - their crops,
> which are their liveliehood.
Bruce, you often lecture people on how they don't understand their
rights. Unfortunately, it is YOU who don't understand your rights. You
seem to repeatedly, continually, and without fail confuse the rights you
HAVE with the rights you THINK you have. John Locke does not live here.
Furthermore, while I like John Locke's philosophy in general, he was
just a philosopher and anyone can just as easily choose from some other
philosopher's views on rights. No elected Commonwealth government today
runs their country and sets rights according to Locke's view of things.
Not a single one.
You can of course argue that all the Commonwealth countries, the
majority of Canadians, the governments they elect, their courts, etc are
stupid. That your view of rights is the correct one, and they are
wrong. The majority, of course, can then argue your position is rather
like that of the patient in the insane asylum who argues that he is sane
- - it is everybody else who is crazy.
I don't like our rights as most Canadians accept them to be. But most
Canadians don't share that view, and to presume they are all wrong and a
tiny (brilliant?) minority are right is the height of arrogance.
So here's the bottom line as to what REALLY are your rights regarding
depradation. It's reality - not an opinion.
You DON'T have a right to destroy wildlife that could be fenced out
because you won't put up the fence and the government won't give you a
permit to shoot wildlife. I'm sure you hate that, but that is what your
rights ARE, and that's the way your fellow citizens want it to remain
for the time being.
If you don't like it, then you have quite a job ahead of you convincing
the majority of people in your province that their view of landowner
rights is wrong and you are right.
> And they *have* been engaged in civil disobedience, all along - or
> didn't you read about all those tractors on the 401, at Queen's Park,
> and on Parliament Hill?
Did they poach a tractor? We've been talking specifically about their
poaching efforts here, not their tractor pull. I don't recall any of
that being done openly.
> How ludicrous! "Livestock" aren't "wildlife" by definition - they
> are your *property*. Farmers put up fences to keep them *in*, not
> out! And if "livestock" could routinely escape from their
> *enclosures*, they wouldn't be much good as livestock, now would
> they? That trait would be bred out of them pretty damn quick.
Haven't been around stock much, have you Bruce? Cows and horses get out
pretty regularly. And lots of hunters, fishermen - and neighboring
landowners - would love the right to shoot livestock on sight found off
the owners' property, off their grazing lease, etc.
But we don't allow that either. Because most of us don't think the
right to do that exists.
But you're right. Farmers put up high enough fences to protect their
stock - most just don't put up fences high enough to protect their crops
when doing so is necessary.
> Not really. At least, it shouldn't.
Well, there we are. What is, versus what should be. Big difference.
> Can't you guys hear what you are saying? "The Crown may choose to
> give you permits"; "Most residents appear to think that's how it
> should operate"? You are using *exactly* the same arguments that the
> Antis use against *us*!
>
> Are you sure you're not a Liberal? You sure sound like one!
Yeah, I hear what I'm saying. Worse yet, I hear what you've been saying
all along. And you sound just like the guys at NAMBLA Bruce, if we're
going to compare assessments of each other's point of view.
"I don't like the rights that the majority of my fellow citizens say I
have and don't have: therefore I am simply going to define my own set of
rights, based on my personal morals and interests, and act on them
accordingly."
Like it or not we have two basic choices on how we deal with rights.
We can have a set of rights that the majority of citizens accept as the
correct interpretation of our rights. That's pretty imperfect.
Behind door number two we have a situation where each person has a right
to define their rights based on what they believe and their individual
morals, no matter what the majority thinks. That's also pretty
imperfect, and it is by far the worst choice of the two.
So the guys at LLA can claim a right to shoot deer. The next door
neighbor can claim the right to shoot any livestock that gets on their
land. The cop can claim a right to beat a confession out of somebody
for the common good. There's no end to it once that starts.
> To use your argument, those cows belong to someone, you shouldn't be
> able to just shoot them up on a whim.
Exactly. You can't. The majority of our fellow citizens have decided
you don't have a right to destroy livestock because it has gotten loose,
just as you don't have a right to destroy wildlife you haven't fenced
off your property.
> As you like to keep harping on about bears, you can habituate deer to
> avoid your land by harassing them out of the area.
Killing something is a rather unique way of "habituating" it...
If killing one deer habituated surviving deer from not coming back to
the area, the predators in this country would have pretty much moved
them off to New York City or wherever by now. It doesn't appear to have
happened.
> And it's not like they are saying "my freezer is a little low, think
> I'll go out an poach me a deer". There is a considerable difference.
>
You're right. An "honest" poacher is at least going to eat what he steals.
> If deer weren't a "big game" animal, we wouldn't be having this
> discussion.
Wrong again Bruce. We've had the same issue with animals that aren't
game species - it just didn't make the digest like the LLA's poaching.
> Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario
Yours in rule of law and reality.
Rick
- --
"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to
visit violence on those who would do us harm."
George Orwell
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 21:16:51 -0600 (CST)
From: "Bruce Mills" <akimoya@cogeco.ca>
Subject: Re: : Lanark Landowners Association
- ----- Original Message -----
"Bruce Mills" <akimoya@cogeco.ca> wrote:
> Sure you do! Gophers are "wildlife", but you're free to shoot them
> at will. Up until recently, here in Ontario anyway, you could pretty
> much shoot wolves at will. They "belong" to everyone, too!
> Simple Bruce.
I swear, Rick, that you are bound and determined to bore me to death with your blather.
You simply cannot accept the fact that you are wrong, and I am right.
That's just how simple it is. The sooner you realize this, the better of you'll be.
Yours in Liberty,
Bruce
Hamilton
Ontario
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 21:33:54 -0600 (CST)
From: Keith de Solla <kdesolla@austin.rr.com>
Subject: Re: lla unfocused?
ross wrote:
> "The LLA are a tad unfocused. . . They're peeved off at everything."
>
> CLEARLY the rfc is not only unfocused, but fractious, sometimes infantile,
> petty, back bitting, and all sorts of other adjectives.
>
> Perhaps when all the land is gone and the guns all gone because of various
> government actions we will finaly mature.
I'm not sure that would make a difference. I think the rights of
England's "subjects" are eroding faster (their guns are almost gone)
- - are they maturing? are they realizing what they have lost?
- --
Keith P. de Solla
kdesolla@austin.rr.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 21:44:54 -0600 (CST)
From: Keith de Solla <kdesolla@austin.rr.com>
Subject: Re: : Lanark Landowners Association
Rick Lowe wrote:
> "Bruce Mills" <akimoya@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Sure you do! Gophers are "wildlife", but you're free to shoot them
>>at will. Up until recently, here in Ontario anyway, you could pretty
>> much shoot wolves at will. They "belong" to everyone, too!
>
>
> Simple Bruce.
>
> People elect governments to, among other things, manage their natural
> resources - including Crown land, deer, and gophers. Those elected
> governments then pass legislation that establishes open seasons, bag
> limits if any, what are vermin and what are not, etc.
>
> If the majority of citizens those natural resources belong to didn't
> agree with the natural resource management policies of the governments
> they elected, then they would do something about it. The grizzly bear
> issue here in BC was a swing issue in at least one riding I'm aware of,
> as just one example of when people disagree over how their wildlife is
> managed.
>
> Unfortunately for the tiny minority who believe their beliefs, opinions,
> conceptions are paramount, policy is not set by the minority, but rather
> by the majority. And that is a good thing.
Unfortunately, I think in a lot of cases the minority does make the
decisions - sometimes that minority is the ones who actually come out
to vote. Sometimes, the minority is the ruling party, sometimes its
just the dictator,.er...prime minister and his band of 'yes' men.
Its been my opinion that its human nature to complain but not actually
do anything. I also think that it some ways that's a common trait
in Canadians (eg. bitch about being screwed by a Liberal gov't only to
put them back in power).
I agree in theory that if the majority of citizens didn't agree with
some gov't policy they would do something about it. In practice
however, that doesn't always happen - sometimes the more vocal minority
wins out.
- -keith
- --
Keith P. de Solla
kdesolla@austin.rr.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 21:58:10 -0600 (CST)
From: Keith de Solla <kdesolla@austin.rr.com>
Subject: Re: A brief history of the NRA
Joe wrote:
> " As former Clinton spokesman George Stephanopoulos said, "Let me make
> one small vote for the NRA. They're good citizens. They call their
> Congressmen. They write. They vote. They contribute. And they get what they
> want over time."
I think the above is what I would like to see used to describe
a Canadian firearms organization someday - admission from the
other side that the organization commands respect because they
are active and effective.
I am not holding my breath........
- --
Keith P. de Solla
kdesolla@austin.rr.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 21:58:48 -0600 (CST)
From: Keith de Solla <kdesolla@austin.rr.com>
Subject: Re: 'Joint' strike fighter
Rick Lowe wrote:
> Ground troops ARE the sharp end of the bayonet, and that is particularly
> true for Canadian forces - when was the last time a Canadian fighter
> pilot died from enemy fire? If we're going to spend money on air
> assets, I want to see it spent on aircraft that can directly give close
> air support to Canadian troops on the ground. To me that means
> transport aircraft and multirole helicopters who can quickly insert
> troops and give us some measure of ground support when we need it. We
> are much more likely to have a need for helicopters capable of ground
> attack than of needing air superiority protection against advanced enemy
> fighter aircraft. A fighter aircraft coming in at 500 knots can't
> provide the kind of support to ground troops that a helicopter on
> station can.
Very valid points.
But it doesn't mean there isn't another role for some sort of high
performance fighter aircraft.
- --
Keith P. de Solla
kdesolla@austin.rr.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 23:06:11 -0600 (CST)
From: Keith de Solla <kdesolla@austin.rr.com>
Subject: Re: : Lanark Landowners Association
Rick Lowe wrote:
> There is only one thing worse than the tyranny of the majority in an
> electoral system of government. And that is the tyranny of the minority.
Which one gave us the Firearms Act?
- --
Keith P. de Solla
kdesolla@austin.rr.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 07:43:02 -0600 (CST)
From: Barry Snow <tanstafl@telusplanet.net>
Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V8 #264
>Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:11:02 -0600 (CST)
>From: "ross" <ross.j@rogers.com>
>Subject: lla unfocused?
>
>snip
>
>"we sleep safe in our beds tonite because we know by dialing 911 we will be
>protected ."
First smile I've gotten here in some time. Beats the shit out of dial 911 and die. Kind of along
the line of "because we think rough men are ready, blah blah"
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 07:45:14 -0600 (CST)
From: Barry Snow <tanstafl@telusplanet.net>
Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V8 #264
>From: "Bruce Mills" <akimoya@cogeco.ca>
>Subject: Re: Lanark Landowners Association
>
>- ----- Original Message -----
>From: Roger & Monique Byrne <mbyrne@rideau.net>
>
>
>
>>> I can't let this go. Bruce, you live in Hamilton. I live 30 miles from
>>> Randy. I supported their group about property rights and everything they
>>> stood for till they started talking about poaching. You're question about
>>> shooting a bear in my house being poaching is about as rediculious as it
>>> gets. A bear in my house is a big difference from a deer in the field.
>>
>>
>
>But you're still shooting it out of season! That must be poaching, according to your narrow minded
>definition!
What threat to your life is a deer in the field as opposed to a bear in your house?
>What about the wolves, coyotes, dogs and foxes, predating upon your lovestock? That must be
>poaching too!
In Albeerta, we can shoot these predators on our farm, open season.
Also add crows, badgers, hares, rabbits, gophers, mice, starlings,
sparrows, magpies, and probably a few more that I would recognize and
recall if I see them with a firearm at hand.
>Give your head a shake, man!
HUH?
>>> These people shooting deer out of season is wrong. It portrays all HUNTERS
>>> as bad people. The media will take a picture of a spotted fawn standing over a dead
>>> doe, not crop damage. I live here Bruce, I know these people. Shotting deer
>>> out of season is wrong. If you support poaching then you are no sportsman or
>>> hunter, just another poacher!
I generally have around 120 deer predating on my hay in the winter. I
feed them alfalfa on the stalk all year round. Now that there is a herd
of elk about six to ten miles away, I spend four thousand dollars for
some fence that witll save me ten thousand if the winter is harsh AND I
have made hay that is good enough quality for them to seek it out. BTW,
I believe it was one of your arguements a few years ago that convinced
me that I should do this. It would be impractical for me to construct
all 18 miles of fence on my property to elk fence which would also
exclude the deer and improve my year end bottom line; not to mention
that I would finally get trees to live, not just the ones planted and
nurtured but the wild trees that abound as seedlings on the two miles of
river that runs thru here.
>Which only goes to show that you don't have the first idea of what 'rights' are, or how they should
>be exercised by free men.
>
>I do *not* support poaching - I support the *right* of landowners to protect their crops, when the
>government does not give them the means to do so, as they should.
When 120 some deer move into my haystack in the middle of winter, should
I shoot them all. My experience tells me that it would have to be way
more than one or two. During the season, I have had a friend shoot a
deer at one end of a 1/2 section field ( one mile by one half mile)
while I was at the other end. There were on that occasion (rare) 120
mule deer and about 60 whitetail on that small piece of land. Not even
half of these left the property. I drove down to his location and by
the time he finished dressing the deer, there were many of these
"spooked" deer jumping the standard barbed wire fence, back into my
property. I suspect that the average LLA member doesn't have more than
a couple of miles of fence on their entire property, including cross
fencing.
>If you cannot differentiate between them, then we are well and truly fucked.
Hmmmm.
Barry. There Aint No Such Thing As a Free Lunch
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 07:45:52 -0600 (CST)
From: "mred" <mred@295.ca>
Subject: Re: : Lanark Landowners Association
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Lowe" <ricklowe@telus.net>
To: <undisclosed-recipients:>
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 11:11 PM
Subject: Re: : Lanark Landowners Association
> "Bruce Mills" <akimoya@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>
>> Sure you do! Gophers are "wildlife", but you're free to shoot them
>> at will. Up until recently, here in Ontario anyway, you could pretty
>> much shoot wolves at will. They "belong" to everyone, too!
> >
> You DON'T have a right to destroy wildlife that could be fenced out
> because you won't put up the fence and the government won't give you a
> permit to shoot wildlife. I'm sure you hate that, but that is what your
> rights ARE, and that's the way your fellow citizens want it to remain
> for the time being.
Yes they could be fenced out but this is strictly a rhetorical statement as
fencing for deer would be extremely expensive, which most? if not all
farmerrs cannot afford ;.however if you would be willing to set up a
foundation and contribute some funds ?, so that farmers in need of deer
fencing could pay for it?, I`m sure they would more than welcome your
efforts.
Its my understanding that any wild animal can be legally shot while
predating on a farmers livestock and destroying his crops ? This applies to
dogs running loose I know, and also to coyotes and wolves predating on his
livestock.Whats the difference between that and shooting deer who are
damaging crops >?
Seems Lands and Forests is over stepping their mandate by issuing "permits"
.
ed/ontario
------------------------------
End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V8 #265
**********************************
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@cogeco.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.