From: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V16 #653 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 Friday, February 20 2015 Volume 16 : Number 653 In this issue: Media ownership An overview of the ties that bind US presidents to Globalist ... RE: BATF ban of AR-15 ammo- Digest V16 #650 Re: RCMP justified in seizing guns, but broke rules in some cases Fwd: FW: LA Times Quote of the day - priceless RE: TAKE THE REBEL MEDIA SURVEY for Ezra Levant RE: RCMP justified in seizing guns, but broke rules in some cases NATIONAL REVIEW ON LINE: A Pincer Movement on Ammunition The Rebel.Media- Toronto Imam says Muslims didn't do 9/11, ... Ezra and Marisa Semkiw discuss the wearing of the niqab at ... Smedley Butler ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 14:54:56 -0800 From: "Clive Edwards" <45clive@telus.net> Subject: Media ownership Although not presented by a guy with a good haircut and a woman in a short skirt, the short presentation on the gathering and distribution of news is likely information you weren't aware of. http://www.neonnettle.com/sphere/123-how-tv-media-control-you-mind-psychological-sedation- .38clive ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 14:54:56 -0800 From: "Clive Edwards" <45clive@telus.net> Subject: An overview of the ties that bind US presidents to Globalist ... ...organizations A Century of American Figurehead Presidents Marching to the Beat of Wall Street and the New World Order http://www.globalresearch.ca/a-century-of-american-presidents-marching-to-the-beat-of-wall-street-and-the-new-world-order/5432049 For 100 years now the globalist movement has been out to usurp our national sovereignty, replacing it with a one world government with one currency soon eclipsed by a microchip. There has been a war on both religion and family in this country just as individual rights are being attacked. Loyalty to the collective group above all else has been taught in the federalized public education brainwash called Common Core. Secrecy abounds in a totalitarian state. The militant Orwellian arm of child protective services and the thoroughly broken foster care system in this country are also at war with the American family. Obama and company have been busy making secret deals with the UN as part of the preparation for enactment of the Agenda 21. Still another NWO policy in both North America and Europe is the free and uninterrupted flow of immigration, pitting races, classes, religions and nationalities against each other. 30-06 clive "It's nothing short of bizarre to think that courts would start protecting liberty because of brilliant libertarian legal arguments. To believe this, one would have to take the naive view - that government officials are really reasonable, serious people who are just waiting to have the right ideas put in front of them." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 14:54:56 -0800 From: "Clive Edwards" <45clive@telus.net> Subject: RE: BATF ban of AR-15 ammo- Digest V16 #650 > a lot of AR owners load their own to cut costs and i imagine have > hundreds if not thousands of brass and bullets stached away for just > such a thing as this. The anti-liberty crowd think a generation ahead. You may have enough brass, primers, powder and bullets to last five years, but what then? What of your children and grand children? We can have all the guns and ammo we can stockpile, but an end to replacements, including parts and components means gradually our stockpiles decrease. The political parties of Canada know this. That is why the prohibited class exists: you cannot pass it on to the next generation. That is why licensing exists: so your wife and son will have to go through a lot of bother to keep your guns. Keeping them won't be the default position. Now do you know why it is an all or nothing proposition? .223 clive ------------------------------ Date: Thu, February 19, 2015 6:04 pm From: "Richard Fritze" Subject: Re: RCMP justified in seizing guns, but broke rules in some cases Quote: "The report makes 10 recommendations, a key one being that the RCMP should have guidelines for the seizure of firearms, ammunition and contraband during emergencies." "Firearms, ammunition and contraband” all lumped together. Easy to see the bias in this report. I wonder if the Commission had to hold its collective nose when it found RCMO wrong-doing. How about guidelines for following the law? And if in doubt, or if not fully knowledgable, then not merely jumping in and later lying about it all. Sad. RICHARD A. FRITZE Barrister, Solicitor & Notary "RIDING SHOTGUN FOR YOU" 403 343 2506 BUS. 1 877 79 4GUNS toll-free [1 877 794 4867] WWW.FRITZE.COM That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer’s cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there. George Orwell 2015: Commemorating 800 years since Magna Carta On 2015-02-19, at 1:58 PM, Dennis Young wrote: > RCMP justified in seizing guns, but broke rules in some cases > High River: Report states officers should not have taken guns that were > securely stored > Wednesday, Feb 18, 2015 10:23 am - By: Don Patterson > http://www.westernwheel.com/article/20150218/WHE0801/302189977 > > RCMP were justified in removing firearms left "in plain sight" in High > River homes after the 2012 flood, but officers went too far by going > back a second time taking guns that were securely stored, according to > a report. A report of the RCMP Civilian Review and Complaints > Commission released last week states the RCMP members were authorized > to search homes in High River to look for people who were trapped, as > well as to retrieve pets and personal items at the request of some > residents. It states police did not initially plan to seize firearms, > but they were justified in seizing weapons found during their search > that were not secured. However, police did not have the authority to > take guns that were securely stored, or entering homes a second time > specifically to seize unsecured firearms. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 16:52:35 -0800 From: stillwaters@xplornet.ca Subject: Fwd: FW: LA Times Quote of the day - priceless How long before Canadian vets are regarded the same way? From a US friend .... Taylor LA Times Quote of the day -priceless Quote of the day by Dianne Feinstein....... Dianne Feinstein: "All vets are mentally ill in some way and government should prevent them from owning firearms." Yep, - she really said it on Thursday in a meeting in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee....and the quote below from the LA Times is priceless. Sometimes even the L.A. Times gets it right. Kurt Nimmo: "Senator Feinstein insults all U.S. Veterans as she flays about in a vain attempt to save her anti-firearms bill." Quote of the Day from the Los Angeles Times: "Frankly, I don't know what it is about California, but we seem to have a strange urge to elect really obnoxious women to high office. I'm not bragging, you understand, but no other state, including Maine, even comes close. When it comes to sending left-wing dingbats to Washington, we're Number One. There's no getting around the fact that the last time anyone saw the likes of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Maxine Waters, and Nancy Pelosi, they were stirring a cauldron when the curtain went up on ' Macbeth '. The four of them are like jackasses who happen to possess the gift of blab. You don't know if you should condemn them for their stupidity or simply marvel at their ability to form words." Columnist Burt Prelutsky, Los Angeles Times Be sure to forward this to all of the "mentally ill" vets you know. Especially the ones with guns... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 19:24:04 -0800 From: "Clive Edwards" <45clive@telus.net> Subject: RE: TAKE THE REBEL MEDIA SURVEY for Ezra Levant I signed up and took the survey. Rebel Media with Brian Lilley and Ezra Levant, what a concept. I like what they did on High River. But "Rebel"? Give me a break. The first story they sent me was slagging someone for questioning the official story of 9/11. When they accept the official story without question and slag anyone who questions it, I can only conclude they think I am a red neck low IQ Neanderthal. Rebel Media is joining the mainstream media in catering to the ignorant knuckle-draggers among us if this is the best they can do. I've always known and accepted Ezra's "Zionist" side. As long as he acknowledges that this aspect colours his views he is capable of being a good journalist. When he lets that part of himself slip the leash he is no better than a propagandist. .50 Desert Eagle Clive ------------------------------ Date: Thu, February 19, 2015 11:12 pm From: "Dennis Young" Subject: RE: RCMP justified in seizing guns, but broke rules in some cases Excellent point Richard. I didn't study the recommendations to much because I knew that implementing them would only entrench forever what happened in High River as Standard Operating Procedure. Thanks for cutting through the bullshit for us. Dennis From: Richard Fritze [mailto:rfritze@fritze.com] Sent: February-19-15 5:04 PM To: Dennis Young Cc: FIREARMS DIGEST Subject: Re: RCMP justified in seizing guns, but broke rules in some cases Quote: "The report makes 10 recommendations, a key one being that the RCMP should have guidelines for the seizure of firearms, ammunition and contraband during emergencies." "Firearms, ammunition and contraband" all lumped together. Easy to see the bias in this report. I wonder if the Commission had to hold its collective nose when it found RCMO wrong-doing. How about guidelines for following the law? And if in doubt, or if not fully knowledgable, then not merely jumping in and later lying about it all. Sad. RICHARD A. FRITZE Barrister, Solicitor & Notary "RIDING SHOTGUN FOR YOU" 403 343 2506 BUS. 1 877 79 4GUNS toll-free [1 877 794 4867] WWW.FRITZE.COM That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there. George Orwell 2015: Commemorating 800 years since Magna Carta ------------------------------ Date: Thu, February 19, 2015 11:23 pm From: "Dennis Young" Subject: NATIONAL REVIEW ON LINE: A Pincer Movement on Ammunition NATIONAL REVIEW ON LINE: A Pincer Movement on Ammunition The ATF is one side, and the EPA is the other. By Kevin D. Williamson - February 18, 2015 4:00 AM www.nationalreview.com As it wanes, the Obama administration grows bold, and even reckless, on matters that send a thrill up the leg of its most leftward supporters. Its new attack on so-called armor-piercing ammunition — which is, in reality, a very broad attack on ammunition across the board — is a dangerous and destructive example of the administration’s late-days slide into rule-by-decree. A little background, which is unavoidably weedy: In 1986, Congress revised the Gun Control Act, inserting prohibitions against the manufacture and import of “armor-piercing ammunition.” Armor-piercing ammunition does not mean ammunition designed to defeat body armor — that would be too simple. It means, most broadly, ammunition that could defeat the soft body armor of the sort that was cutting edge in the 1980s. But banning all such ammunition as “armor-piercing” would have meant a ban on practically all hunting rifles. One of the truly ignorant and insipid aspects of our gun-control debate is that the gun-grabbers spend so much time wringing their hands over “assault rifles,” which are relatively low-powered but kinda-scary-looking firearms generally chambered for rounds (mainly the .223) that are too small even to legally use for deer hunting, while at the same time insisting that they do not wish to bother us about hunting rifles, which generally are much, much more powerful than the AR-15s that so dominate the progressive imagination. So, “armor-piercing” came to mean ammunition made of certain materials (tungsten alloys, steel, etc.) that could defeat certain kinds of body armor and that could be fired from a handgun. But, again, similar problems crop up: Almost all rifle cartridges could be fired from a handgun, because there are handguns chambered for all manner of cartridges. The classic American rifle cartridge, the .30-06, can be fired from certain handguns, as can classic big-game rounds such as the .45-70, which is popular among moose and grizzly hunters (as well as non-hunting hikers and campers who wish to be prepared for a moose or grizzly encounter). So that leads us to another refinement: an exemption for single-shot handguns. “The term ‘single shot handgun’ means a break-open or bolt action handgun that can accept only a single cartridge manually, and does not accept or use a magazine or other ammunition feeding device. The term does not include a pocket pistol or derringer-type firearm.” So sayeth the ATF. It’s almost as though the agency is reasoning toward some specific, predetermined goal, isn’t it? “Sporting exemptions” have been handed out fairly commonly for ammunition that might otherwise be classified as armor-piercing, and requests for those exemptions have become much more common as environmentally minded sportsmen and the firms that supply them look for alternatives to lead-based bullets, which can poison carrion-feeding animals such as the California condor. California prohibits the use of lead-based bullets for hunting in the condor’s range, and other states have some restrictions, too. These non-lead bullets made of steel or alloys are not designed to pierce body armor; they’re designed to keep unnecessary lead out of the environment and out of the alimentary canals of wild animals. But their composition means that they can be classified as armor-piercing rounds, if the feds can find an excuse to do so. The upshot of all this maneuvering is that the ATF intends to revoke the sporting exemption for certain popular kinds of .223 ammunition, allowing it to be reclassified as armor-piercing and therefore banned, even though it is not designed as armor-piecing ammunition and has no special armor-piercing characteristics. The reason for this is that the feared and hated AR-style rifle has been enjoying a new career as a handgun. This is yet another consumer response to federal regulation: Some people prefer short-barreled rifles, particularly for home-defense situations when they will most likely be used indoors, but federal law makes short-barreled rifles a special category of weapon that requires additional permits and taxes, and some jurisdictions ban them outright. But if you remove the shoulder stock from an AR-style rifle, it’s not a rifle — it’s a handgun, albeit one of the clumsiest and goofiest handguns on the market. But the fact that there is a multi-shot handgun commercially available for those non-lead .223 rounds means that such ammunition can be banned as armor-piercing, even though it is not armor-piercing ammunition, by use or by design. So, everybody goes back to lead, right? Wrong. Environmental groups have been pressuring the EPA to begin regulating — or to ban outright — lead ammunition under the Toxic Substances Control Act. They lost their most recent round when the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that the EPA lacks statutory authority to regulate lead ammunition, but when has statutory authority stopped the Obama administration? The FCC has no statutory authority to enact net-neutrality rules — that’s why it has reached back to a 1930s, New Deal–era law for justification. You can be sure that the campaign to use the EPA or other federal agencies to ban lead ammunition is far from over. The U.S. Humane Society already is petitioning the Interior Department to ban lead ammunition on public lands. What gun-rights advocates fear — not without reason — is that this is the beginning of a pincer movement, with the ATF banning non-lead ammunition as a threat to armor-wearing police officers and the EPA banning lead ammunition as a toxin. Never mind that there is no epidemic of police officers being gunned down, despite their body armor, by hoodlums carrying AR-style pistols. The use of such weapons in crimes is so vanishingly rare that no police agency even bothers to track them as a category. But they look scary. There is no reason to assume that this will stop with .223 ammunition popular for scary-looking AR-style rifles. There are multi-shot handguns, mostly revolvers, chambered for many kinds of rifle cartridges, meaning that the armor-piercing designation could be applied to all sorts of ammunition for hunting rifles. In a sense, the gun-grabbers were telling the truth when they said that they had no designs on our sporting rifles. But the ammunition for those rifles is another story.  — Kevin D. Williamson is roving correspondent of National Review.  ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 23:57:41 -0600 From: Larry James Fillo Subject: The Rebel.Media- Toronto Imam says Muslims didn't do 9/11, ... ...Charlie Hebdo ... Ezra is back along with investigative journalist Jonathan Halevi. The Sun never sets on the pursuit of truth in Canada. http://www.therebel.media/shock_toronto_imam_says_muslims_didnt_do_911_charlie_hebdo ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 00:20:05 -0600 From: Larry James Fillo Subject: Ezra and Marisa Semkiw discuss the wearing of the niqab at ... ...citizenship ceremonies Marisa Semkiw is certainly a woman that I'm glad does not wear a niquab! http://www.therebel.media/niqab1 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 06:16:56 -0800 From: "Clive Edwards" <45clive@telus.net> Subject: Smedley Butler http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/smedley-butler-racket-war/ From 1898 to 1931, Smedley Darlington Butler was a member of the U.S. Marine Corps. By the time he retired he had achieved what was then the Corps’s highest rank, major general, and by the time he died in 1940, at 58, he had more decorations, including two medals of honor, than any other Marine. During his years in the Corps he was sent to the Philippines (at the time of the uprising against the American occupation), China, France (during World War I), Mexico, Central America, and Haiti. In light of this record Butler presumably shocked a good many people when in 1935 — as a second world war was looming — he wrote in the magazine Common Sense, I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism [corporatism]. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents. That same year he published a short book with the now-famous title War Is a Racket, for which he is best-known today. Butler opened the book with these words: War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. He followed this by noting, “For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.” Paying the cost Butler went on to describe who bears the costs of war — the men who die or return home with wrecked lives, and the taxpayers — and who profits — the companies that sell goods and services to the military. (The term “military-industrial complex” would not gain prominence until 1961, when Dwight Eisenhower used it in his presidential farewell address. See Nick Turse’s book The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday Lives.) Writing in the mid-1930s, Butler foresaw a U.S. war with Japan to protect trade with China and investments in the Philippines, and declared that it would make no sense to the average American: We would be all stirred up to hate Japan and go to war — a war that might well cost us tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives of Americans, and many more hundreds of thousands of physically maimed and mentally unbalanced men. Of course, for this loss, there would be a compensating profit — fortunes would be made. Millions and billions of dollars would be piled up. By a few. Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders. Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators. They would fare well.… But what does it profit the men who are killed? What does it profit their mothers and sisters, their wives and their sweethearts? What does it profit their children? What does it profit anyone except the very few to whom war means huge profits? Noting that “until 1898 [and the Spanish-American War] we didn’t own a bit of territory outside the mainland of North America,” he observed that after becoming an expansionist world power, the U.S. government’s debt swelled 25 times and “we forgot George Washington’s warning about ‘entangling alliances.’ We went to war. We acquired outside territory.” It would have been far cheaper (not to say safer) for the average American who pays the bills to stay out of foreign entanglements. For a very few this racket, like bootlegging and other underworld rackets, brings fancy profits, but the cost of operations is always transferred to the people — who do not profit. Butler detailed the huge profits of companies that sold goods to the government during past wars and interventions and the banks that made money handling the government’s bonds. The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent. But war-time profits — ah! that is another matter — twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, and even eighteen hundred percent — the sky is the limit. All that traffic will bear. Uncle Sam has the money. Let’s get it. Of course, it isn’t put that crudely in war time. It is dressed into speeches about patriotism, love of country, and ‘we must all put our shoulders to the wheel,’ but the profits jump and leap and skyrocket — and are safely pocketed. And who provides these returns? “We all pay them — in taxation.… But the soldier pays the biggest part of the bill.” His description of conditions at veterans’ hospitals reminded me of what we’re hearing today about the dilapidated veterans’ health-care system. Butler expressed his outrage at how members of the armed forces are essentially tricked into going to war — at a pitiful wage. Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent out to die. This was the “war to end all wars.” This was the “war to make the world safe for democracy.” No one mentioned to them, as they marched away, that their going and their dying would mean huge war profits. No one told these American soldiers that they might be shot down by bullets made by their own brothers here. No one told them that the ships on which they were going to cross might be torpedoed by submarines built with United States patents. They were just told it was to be a “glorious adventure.” Thus, having stuffed patriotism down their throats, it was decided to make them help pay for the war, too. So, we gave them the large salary of $30 a month. Making war less likely Butler proposed ways to make war less likely. Unlike others, he had little faith in disarmament conferences and the like. Rather, he suggested three measures: (1) take the profit out of war by conscripting “capital and industry and labor” at $30 a month before soldiers are conscripted; (2) submit the question of entry into a proposed war to a vote only of “those who would be called upon to do the fighting and dying”; (3) “make certain that our military forces are truly forces for defense only.” It’s unlikely that those measures would ever be adopted by Congress or signed by a president, and of course conscription is morally objectionable, even if the idea of drafting war profiteers has a certain appeal. But Butler’s heart was in the right place. He was aware that his program would not succeed: “I am not a fool as to believe that war is a thing of the past.” Yet in 1936 he formalized his opposition to war in his proposed constitutional “Amendment for Peace.” It contained three provisions: • The removal of the members of the land armed forces from within the continental limits of the United States and the Panama Canal Zone for any cause whatsoever is prohibited. • The vessels of the United States Navy, or of the other branches of the armed service, are hereby prohibited from steaming, for any reason whatsoever except on an errand of mercy, more than five hundred miles from our coast. • Aircraft of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is hereby prohibited from flying, for any reason whatsoever, more than seven hundred and fifty miles beyond the coast of the United States. He elaborated on the amendment and his philosophy of defense in an article in Woman’s Home Companion, September 1936. It’s a cliché of course to say, “The more things change, the more they stay the same,” but on reading Butler today, who can resist thinking it? As we watch Barack Obama unilaterally and illegally reinsert the U.S. military into the Iraqi disaster it helped cause and sink deeper into the violence in Syria, we might all join in the declaration with which Butler closes his book: TO HELL WITH WAR! Postscript: In 1934 Butler publicly claimed he had been approached by a group of businessmen about leading half a million war veterans in a coup against Franklin D. Roosevelt with the aim of establishing a fascist dictatorship. This is known as the “Business Plot.” A special committee set up by the U.S. House of Representatives, which heard testimony from Butler and others, is reported to have issued a document containing some confirmation. The alleged plot is the subject of at least one book, The Plot to Seize the White House, and many articles. .455 Webley clive, who loves the smell of Cordite in the morning ;) ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V16 #653 *********************************** 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".)