From: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V15 #432 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Sender: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Errors-To: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Precedence: normal owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Cdn-Firearms Digest Saturday, December 29 2012 Volume 15 : Number 432 In this issue: [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: From: Subject: [none] From: Phil Hewkin Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 3:35 PM To: carolyn.mcclanahan@gmail.com Subject: meaningful discussions Dear Carolyn McClanahan. I write all the way from the frozen NORTH, in Canada! If stringent gun controls and restrictions abound from the criminal misuse of firearms, Why then, does the same logic not apply to auto-fatality? If the shooter, Adam Lanza, had crashed a 1989 ford f-150 4x4 into a crowd of children at a busy crosswalk, instead of a gun, would we be hearing of arguments in favor of banning 1989 ford f-150 4x4’s? We would not entertain such foolishness. The responsibility falls to the driver. If such an incident were proven to be a result of mechanical failure, would we then blame the manufacturer, or the last mechanic to do a servicing? would we blame the owner of the auto for a lack of much needed maintenance? again, we would not. You see, all this anti-gun rhetoric stems from an ingrained fear and contempt for guns and gun owners. lets call it what it is, please. PREJUDICE! If we were to actually apply the “ban this-or-that” crowd’s bizarre logic, Would it not be very obvious that the innocent honest and responsible segment of society who do regular maintenance on their 1989 ford f-150’s are being targeted for political expedience, and being victimized simply because they possess 1989 ford f-150 4x4’s! If YOU owned a 1989 ford f-150, and YOU were subjected to demonization, blatant public defamation, regardless of how responsible you are, and how far removed you are from any unfortunate tragedy involving 1989 ford f-150 4x4’s and school children, wouldn’t you be offended by the sleight, or would you knuckle under, and shoulder the collective guilt, would you so endorse the politically correct prejudice, even when you know that is exactly what we are talking about here? Would YOU surrender that “evil pickup truck”, to benefit some misguided’s twisted, perverted sense of “PUBLIC SAFETY”! It does not seem strange to you that Barack Obama’s child attends a school that employs ELEVEN armed guards, and they are currently seeking to employ a 12th? Dear Carolyn. I challenge YOU to answer these very pointed questions, and stay respectful, as I have so clearly managed! Please do keep your answers steeped in logic, and fact, if possible. I will not entertain emotional nonsense. Sincerely. Phil Hewkin Prince George B.C. CANADA philhewkin@telus.net ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] From: "Joe Gingrich" Subject: Tricks of Propaganda? Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 18:03:48 -0600 Tricks of Propaganda? http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/12/27/8-year-old-foster-child-unwraps-donated-gift-finds-teddy-bear-armed-with-pistol/ 8-Year-Old Foster Child Unwraps Donated Gift, Finds Teddy Bear Armed With Pistol Shocking Christmas Morning In Harlem Leads To Heat For New York City ACS December 27, 2012 NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) - A gift-giving event for foster children went terribly wrong. A teddy bear came wrapped with a gun and then got into the hands of a child. It was a Christmas morning in Harlem that turned frightening. What looks like a revolver was discovered by an 8-year-old as she unwrapped a donated teddy bear in front of her foster mom Sheba Anderson. "She had a teddy bear in there and then she was waving around this gun and I was just shocked," Anderson told CBS 2's Amy Dardashtian on Thursday. CBS 2 Met with the little girl, Natasha, but she wasn't identified for this story because she's in foster care. She told Dardashtian when she saw the gun she wasn't scared, she thought it was a toy. But Manhattan gun expert Charlie Hu said it was no toy. "It look like a start gun, you know, starter pistol," Hu said. The kind used to start a foot race, designed to fire blanks but nonetheless dangerous in the hands of a child, Hu said. The armed teddy was one of several gifts Anderson said she picked up at St. Anthony's Church in SoHo last Thursday. "It's not a church-sponsored program or organization. I know it's this . I have the name of the group, this Edwin Gould Services for Children and Family," a spokesman for the church said. The Administration for Children's Services contracts with the nonprofit. In a statement, a spokesman said ACS is "investigating how and why an inoperable weapon was discovered in a foster home. We are concerned when any potential risk in a foster home comes to our attention, and are working to ensure that all of the children in the home remain safe." "You need to check these gifts wherever they come from," Anderson added. As for Natasha, she got lip gloss and a jacket instead. She said she didn't like the outdated teddy anyway. Police said the revolver was empty. CBS 2's Dardashtian reached out to the Edwin Gould Services for Children and Families to find out who donated the bear, but did not hear back. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_louise_01_03_03_mockingbird.html Excerpt: Operation Mockingbird: CIA Media Manipulation By Mary Louise ----------- There is such an overwhelming amount of information pertaining to the CIA that it is impossible to cover it all in one book, much less an article. Personally, I have come to the conclusion that the media is not only influenced by the CIA.....the media is the CIA. Many Americans think of their supposedly free press as a watchdog on government, mainly because the press itself shamelessly promotes that myth. One of the first tenets for the control of a population is to control all sources of information the population receives and mostly because of the pervasive CIA and Operation Mockingbird, the mainstream American Press is a controlled multi-national corporate/government megaphone. They are up to their eyeballs in dirty deeds and there will never be an end to the corruption that prevails unless the CIA is abolished. Otherwise, the CIA will just keep on using their tricks of propaganda, stuffed ballot boxes, purchased elections, extortion, blackmail, drug trafficking, sexual intrigue, kidnapping, beating, torture, intimidation, economic sabotage, false stories about opponents in the local media, infiltration and disruption of opposing political parties, demolition and evacuation procedures, death squads, and politically motivated assassinations. The CIA is the epitome of organized crime run amuck! ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] Subject: [Fwd: CBC - Hundreds of Utah teachers get gun training in wake of Newtown shooting] From: decline@pteradon.tera-byte.com Date: Fri, December 28, 2012 7:17 pm It's about time something intelligent was done to stop potential killers. "Gun Free Zones" kill. Demented murderous psychos kill. ONLY self defense and defense of your charges can stop someone intent on killing. Thank God Lanza didn't use a vehicle loaded with explosives as common as cans full of gas as the Muslim doctor tried in England. Fortunately he didn't plan very well and only horribly burned himself. Or how about propane bombs as the Columbine lunatics planned to use. Many more could have been maimed and killed. IN SECONDS. Remember the worst school killing in US history, the Bath school murders, in 1927. Elementary children killed with explosives and a car..... ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: CBC - Hundreds of Utah teachers get gun training in wake of Newtown shooting From: "Dennis R. Young" Date: Fri, December 28, 2012 2:11 pm To: "FIREARMS DIGEST" -------------------------------------------------------------------------- CBC - Utah teachers get gun training in wake of Newtown shooting by Community Team - Last Updated: December 28, 2012 3:29 PM Read 0 comments0 http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2012/12/utah-teachers-get-gun-training-in-wake-of-newtown-shooting.html Hundreds of teachers in Utah attended a six-hour gun-training course run by a firearm lobby group on Thursday; training they deemed necessary following the attack on Sandy Hook Elementary School that left 20 children and six staff members dead. "If we have the ability to stop something, we should do it," said Jessica Fiveash, an attendee and elementary school teacher who learned how to use a 9 mm Ruger with a laser sight. Roughly 200 teachers received free lessons in West Valley City, as the Utah Shooting Sports Council had waived its usual fees. They applied for a concealed-weapons permits, submitted fingerprints and mug shots, learned how to handle their weapons and received advice for stopping a gunman in his tracks. The Newtown, Conn. shooting, which had an overall death toll of 28 people including the gunman and his mother, was fresh in the minds of those training in Utah. So too, perhaps, were the words National Rifle Association spokesperson Wayne LaPierre. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," he said in a Dec. 21 conference. The NRA's proposal to place an armed officer in U.S. schools that don't already have them has been blasted by critics. Some speak of the economic feasibility of such an endeavour, others of the dangers, and some of the fact that armed personnel at Columbine High School in Colorado and the Fort Hood Army post in Texas were unable to stop mass shootings in the past. Even more controversial is the idea that teachers themselves should be armed. Some have argued that teachers' weapons might be turned against them, that they may up in the hands of students, and that using firearms simply shouldn't be part of an educator's job description. "No teacher is ever going to be as effective as a trained law enforcement officer," said Kristen Rand, the legislative director for the Violence Policy Center. "Even trained police officers don't always hit their targets, and arming teachers could put innocent students at risk of crossfire," she said, adding that it's "just not rational" that a teacher could stop someone who has decided to go on a shooting rampage. Advocates counter that teachers can be a first line of response before armed officers arrive on scene, and that using a firearm should be an option. "I wouldn't hesitate to shoot if the danger was immediate," said Fiveash. -- With files from the Associated Press What do you make of this initiative? We have all been students, and perhaps you are a teacher - can a gun make a classroom safer? ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] Subject: Self defense From: "mikeack" Date: Fri, December 28, 2012 7:44 pm From: Mikeack Date: 20121228 Re: Self defense Here's a good example of why everyone has rthe ight to effective and timely personal defense: http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/indian-gang-rape-victim-dies-in-singapore-hospital-1.1093911 Why the so-called "women's right" groups don't make personal defense their number-one issue, I'll never understand. -- M.J. Ackermann, MD (Mike) Rural Family Physician, Box 13, 120 Cameron Rd. Sherbrooke, NS Canada B0J 3C0 902-522-2172 mikeack@ns.sympatico.ca "Hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst". ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] From: "Clive Edwards" <45clive@telus.net> Subject: RE: Buchanan: Christmas in an anti-Christian Age Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 17:58:50 -0800 >With reference to Dawkins' view that the Christian faith "requires no >justification and brooks no argument," Seddon makes a salient point. Atheism is required if globalism is to succeed. Our human masters must not be superseded by any God, especially one that can empower people to resist slavery. In the end, all justification for freedom rests on the spiritual plane. Clive ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] From: "Clive Edwards" <45clive@telus.net> Subject: DND removes report on killing of Canadian soldier by Israeli forces Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 18:20:06 -0800 http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/story.html?id=7742746 The Defence Department has quietly removed from the Internet a report into the killing of a Canadian military officer by Israeli forces, a move the soldier's widow says is linked to the Conservative government's reluctance to criticize Israel for any wrongdoing. Maj. Paeta Hess-von Kruedener and three other United Nations observers were killed in 2006 when the Israeli military targeted their small outpost with repeated artillery barrages as well as an attack by a fighter aircraft. Clive ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] >I am genuinely hoping to generate discussion and action on this subject. >anyone who loves the CBC, need not respond. >As I detest the CBC, I will not entertain any defense of the CBC. > Phil Hewkin As much as I detest public funding for any business or industry I am also conscious of the fact that "free enterprise" is more merchantile than free. It is not so much that government controls business as the other way round, especially where global business is concerned. The only way to break up the monopolies is through local, not global or even national control. I would be more supportive of CBC if they had voices that represented my culture of freedom and liberty. None the less, finding intelligent programming on the air, especially while driving, is problematic. For the most part CBC presents intelligent programming. If anyone has information on alternatives I would appreciate it. BTW, quite a few years ago I worked for CBC television Vancouver (where Toronto producers were sent on working vacations). CBC does have a very inbred culture and politics is obviously important to its internal functioning. When CBC talks down to you, they assume you have an IQ of 100. When most other broadcasters talk down to you they assume you have an IQ of 60 including the hot air factor. Clive "I don't drink and drive or listen to country music on the radio." ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 23:25:32 -0400 From: DARLENEMUIR Subject: Letter sent to New Glasgow News/Dec 28/12 Dear Editor, Laws based on emotion, without knowledge or foresight, regardless of their perceived need, never make good laws nor receive the consent and compliance of the people that are targeted at, ultimately resulting in their failure. Canada's Firearms Act has been a study in this truth. Thursday’s headline story in the News underlines how little we have learned from our own failed experiment. Jon Fisher asks "can any American defend the legality of these weapons with a clear conscience?" The answer is they can and they do. Mr. Fisher, like many others, advocates the notion of collective responsibility. American gun owners will no more accept responsibility for unspeakable horror in Newtown then Canadian gun owners do for an atrocity in Montreal. If the implement used in either case was a knife or vehicle “collective responsibility" would not even be a remote issue. Given that the vast majority of us own both a knife and a vehicle there is nothing to vilify but the culprit. If we are to accept the paternalistic position that we in our superiority can dictate what American law should be we should at least get our facts straight before doing so. "Assault weapon" traditionally was a term denoting a firearm that is magazine fed and capable of fully automatic fire. For mostly political reasons the term has been converted to a semi-automatic firearm with features that do not change how the firearm functions but make it guilty of being cosmetically military in appearance. The American's previously had a ten year ban on these new age "assault weapons". It is important to note that not all varieties of semi-automatic firearms met the criteria of "assault weapon" in their previous law. Under that law only the sale of these deemed assault weapons was banned not the 10's of millions of them already in civilian hands. It is highly unlikely that any future American "assult weapon" ban will make all semi-automatic firearms illegal. Attempting to confiscate the already existing stocks in civilian hands would be a veritable nightmare. American’s unlike Canadian’s have a constitutional right to property and a willingness to guard that right. Mr. Ferguson's opinion that semi-automatic firearms need to be banned, in the foreseeable future, is little more than a pipe dream. Given that Mr. Ferguson is a firearms dealer one would think that he would be cognizant of some of these facts. In fact the Bushmaster AR-15 reportedly used in Newtown is a legal firearm here in Canada. Given these factors alone it is a mistake for Mr. Ferguson to suggest the emulation of Canada's current firearms laws in the United States would solve firearm crime. Mr. Ferguson also seems to be unaware that mental assessment and criminal checks are already existing American requirements. Mr. Ferguson's apparent lack of knowledge of both Canadian and American firearms laws might be forgiven given the extremely complicated nature of our gun laws. The reality is there are very few police, lawyers or judges that have more than a superficial knowledge of their entire content. While the emotion provoking catch all "assault weapon" is currently on the minds of many American's, mental health is also getting a little attention. American’s, being more preoccupied with the concept of freedom then Canadians have historically been, need to guard against a witch hunt of the mentally ill. The "collective responsibility" of American gun owner’s leaves them open to the creative use of "mentally unstable" that will follow as surely as night follows day. While the primary focus has been on the how, rather than the why, a few relevant points have been raised as to why. The media does thrive on and nurse infamy. If you make them bled you lead. The slow death of religion in western society makes the long standing "ban" on murder less of a factor for some. The severe decay of the family cannot be looked on as a step forward. There are a number of possible contributing factors in these instances. Reducing a complex issue to a “ban” cure all may work politically but the results will fall far short of stated outcomes. Al Muir Plymouth ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] Date: Sat, December 29, 2012 12:36 am From: "Dennis R. Young" Subject: Critics Slam Sen. Feinstein's "Assault Weapons" Ban, Gun Registry Critics Slam Sen. Feinstein's "Assault Weapons" Ban, Gun Registry Written by Alex Newman - Friday, 28 December 2012 18:15 http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/14049-critics-slam-sen-feinstein%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cassault-weapon%E2%80%9D-ban-gun-registry Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California has stirred up a hornets' nest with her latest proposal to ban so-called "assault weapons" and standard capacity magazines while creating a federal registry of gun owners, complete with pictures and fingerprints. Analysts say supporting the measure would be "political suicide" for Democrats, and some opponents of Sen. Feinstein's most recent assault on the Second Amendment are even asking the White House to put the far-left lawmaker on trial for treason. More than a few critics also suggested the move against gun rights could start another revolution or civil war. Despite claims by the Obama administration and the establishment media, recent polls show that a majority of Americans oppose Feinstein's scheme, not that opinion polls matter when discussing rights enshrined in the Constitution. Analysts also say the dangerous legislation is unlikely to pass - especially with GOP control of the House and even liberal so-called "RINO" Republicans in the Senate vowing to oppose the measure. The previous "assault weapons" ban, which expired in 2004, was also entirely ineffective, according to studies. Instead of more gun control laws, pressure is mounting on legislators to repeal statutes purporting to create so-called "gun-free zones," which experts say are a "magnet" for mass murderers who obviously do not obey laws anyway. The National Rifle Association (NRA), meanwhile, is pushing a controversial plan for federally funded armed guards at schools to help prevent future tragedies. Sen. Feinstein's proposed legislation, which she promised to introduce in 2013, would purport to ban the sale, manufacture, or importation of 120 types of guns - essentially semi-automatic firearms that some politicians and their allies in the establishment press have arbitrarily described as "assault weapons." Included on the list are many of the most popular pistols, rifles, and shotguns owned by tens of millions of Americans. The bill would also seek to criminalize the possession of standard capacity magazines that accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The anti-gun extremists in Washington, D.C., critics say, are hoping to completely disarm America. "The bottom line: If we are foolish enough to embrace a ban on any weapon in the coming Congress then we are unwittingly embracing a ban on every weapon," noted AWR Hawkins with the pro-Second Amendment group AmmoLand Shooting Sports, saying Feinstein's plan was really a thinly veiled attempt to ban handguns as well. "The Democrats cannot be trusted with our freedoms, and they will politicize every tragedy to accomplish their ends." Another one of the most troubling aspects of the Feinstein scheme is a provision that would purport to mandate a federal database of gun owners, which, aside from being anti-constitutional, is also currently prohibited by statute. According to a summary of the legislation released by Sen. Feinstein, the bill would unconstitutionally seek to register weapons in a federal database that would include photographs and fingerprints of gun owners. Also required to be able to keep one's "grandfathered" weapons under the proposal would be local law enforcement verification placed in the federal registry, as mandated by the "National Firearms Act" (NFA) - essentially requiring a signature from a county sheriff or city police chief. One of the many problems already cited with the plan is that some anti-gun local law enforcement bosses could refuse to sign, as they already do oftentimes for machine guns, leaving gun owners with the option of either giving up their weapons, facing arrest, or hiding them. Of course, the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to create a national registry of gun owners any more than it would permit a ban on semi-automatic rifles or pistols - in fact, the Second Amendment explicitly guarantees the God-given right to keep and bear arms, and the Supreme Court recently upheld that right. Aside from that, though, critics of the scheme have pointed to the historical record on gun registration: It is often simply a precursor to outright confiscation, as countless governments including the National Socialist (Nazi) regime of Adolf Hitler, numerous mass murdering communist dictatorships, and even modern-day Western countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia have proven. Plus, critics of the proposal point to studies showing that the previous "assault-weapons" ban - in place from 1994 to 2004, but far less draconian than the current proposal - did virtually nothing to stop crime, murder, or mayhem, despite promises by its supporters. One 2004 study by the National Research Council cited in news reports, for example, found that the scheme "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence." Even the Justice Department explained that it had "no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury." When the ban expired, anti-Second Amendment extremists claimed murder and mayhem would be sure to follow. Of course, that never happened, with murders nationwide actually dropping by almost four percent - the first decline since 1999 - the year after lawmakers refused to renew the ban. There was at least one development, however, that was widely attributed to the last "assault weapons" ban: the overwhelming defeat of Democrats at the polls, likely costing the Democrat Party the control of Congress. Analysts, even those who support more infringements on gun rights, have said the current legislation would almost certainly amount to "political suicide" for Democrats, and especially for any RINOs who might be tempted to join in. Most Americans reject the ban, and gun owners tend to remember politicians who attack their rights. "I think that is a phony piece of legislation and I do not believe it will pass for this reason: It's all built on lies," NRA chief Wayne LaPierre said recently about the controversial scheme, which his organization and its millions of members oppose. Other gun rights leaders such as Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America, known as the fiercest and most uncompromising defender of the right to keep and bear arms, have been just as vocal, warning politicians that they will pay a major political price for seeking to assault the unalienable rights of Americans. While political analysts say the prospects for passage at this point remain slim, gun rights activists have still been making their voices heard loud and clear across the Internet, posting comments all over the Web stating that they will not register or surrender their weapons regardless of any unconstitutional statutes purporting to require it. They are also calling their lawmakers, just in case. More alarming, perhaps, some commentators are openly speculating that further gun control efforts could be the spark that finally kicks off an armed rebellion in the United States. "Feinstein's bill is unprecedented in the history of this country, and requires widespread enforcement in every town and hamlet in order to be effective," wrote Brandon Smith with the liberty-minded Alt-Market in a widely disseminated piece saying Feinstein's bill would trigger the next American Revolution. "The way in which it is designed makes a violent response from the public inevitable." Like other analysts making a similar case, Smith looked at the numbers. "To put this bluntly, there are approximately 50 million gun owners (according to official estimates) in the United States. If only 2% of those gun owners refuse to submit to the Feinstein Database, and the feds attempt confiscation, they will have a massive revolution on their hands," he wrote. "Many Americans, including myself, will not be strolling into the local Fusion Center to register our weapons. Why? Because gun registration reeks of fascism!" Unsurprisingly, the New York Times, widely ridiculed as the official propaganda mouthpiece of the establishment, has come out in favor of Feinstein's controversial proposal. "This is the kind of approach needed if the nation is ever to come to grips with gun violence," the statist paper said in a half-baked editorial. While critics of the establishment press assault on the Second Amendment say the media is largely "talking to itself," a veritable parade of supposed "news" characters have also been shrieking for more gun control - most notably, perhaps, CNN's Piers Morgan, a Briton whom activists are now lobbying to deport for his attacks on Americans' constitutionally guaranteed rights. Despite the establishment media hysteria aimed at creating the perception of stronger support for more infringements on gun rights, polls also show the American public still overwhelmingly supports the right to keep and bear arms. Even in the face of non-stop "assault weapon" propaganda in the mainstream press, most Americans oppose the proposed ban, and 75 percent are against a handgun ban, according to a recent Gallup survey conducted after the Sandy Hook massacre. As anti-gun rights lawmakers pursue unconstitutional legislative schemes, disgraced Attorney General Eric Holder suggested the Obama administration may try to use non-existent "executive" powers to assault gun rights. Holder, whose Justice Department was infamously caught arming Mexican drug cartels in Fast and Furious while using the ensuing chaos to push gun control, famously proposed a taxpayer-funded campaign to "brainwash" Americans against guns. While it seems unlikely at this point that Sen. Feinstein's proposal will pass, the establishment has shown that it is fully behind the plan. Even if it does not get through this time, the anti-gun rights fanatics do not intend to give up anytime soon - though some analysts have already suggested that the gun control movement is "doomed." If the proposal does somehow manage to get through Congress, however, that is when gun rights activists say the real problems will begin. Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com . ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V15 #432 *********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@scorpion.bogend.ca Moderator email: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca List owner: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca FAQ list: http://www.canfirearms/Skeeter/Faq/cfd-faq1.html Web Site: http://www.canfirearms.ca CFDigest Archives: http://www.canfirearms.ca/archives To unsubscribe from _all_ the lists, put the next four lines in a message and mailto:majordomo@scorpion.bogend.ca unsubscribe cdn-firearms-digest unsubscribe cdn-firearms-chat unsubscribe cdn-firearms end (To subscribe, use "subscribe" instead of "unsubscribe".)