Cecil Moore wrote:
Bob wrote:

So I suppose the original question remains unanswered:
Where did you read/hear crime is Canada is skyrocketing?


For the nth time, I read it in the latest "First Freedom"
magazine. Please stop asking questions that I have already
answered multiple times and let's get back to antennas.

I see, that's published by the NRA. Now I'm not suggesting that
everything published by the NRA is heavily biased, but it's reasonable
to suggest there IS bias in their editorial agenda.

(now before you get all up in arms (hey, is that a pun?) defending the
NRA, most special interest group publications are heavily biased to
promote their opinions and values, or lack of them, depending on the origin)

So a few years ago, I read in a 'grocery-checkout-line-tabloid' about
some lady in Maine who gave birth to a harp seal pup, but it's fair to
say that report is not likely accurate. So, as you seem to be well
informed in technical matters - clearly from reading various material
from numerous sources - perhaps it would be prudent to research your
geopolitical demographic information before promoting an opinion based
solely on the line given from one source. To present it as your own
opinion or to side with one source before verifying and validating their
information is to blindly trust your personal credibility with an
outside party; this is akin to letting them speak for you - even though
you didn't verify their statements.

As a bright fellow, you owe it to yourself to validate such statements
before placing your name and reputation on them.

Check with the Fraser Institute, Statistics Canada, or the any of the
dozens of Universities (including American ones) that keep such
statistics about Canada. On average, things are generally pretty quiet
up here.

Still a law abiding guy,
Bob

Cecil Moore wrote:

Bob wrote:

Where did you read/hear crime is Canada is skyrocketing?


Canadians Resisting Tough New Gun Law
By Colin Nickerson, The Boston Globe,
Published Wednesday, January 10, 2001, in the Miami Herald

"But even the (Canadian) federal government concedes that a minimum
of 400,000 of the country's estimated 2.2 million gun owners have
refused to comply -- a shocking figure in a society where respect
for the law is second nature. And the real tally of noncompliers
may be much higher: Gun groups count six million privately owned
rifles and shotguns in Canada, meaning that millions of citizens
may be defying the law."

If millions of citizens choosing to become criminals is not
a skyrocketing crime rate, I don't know what is.


Cecil,

That's a civil protest, the people 'protesting' in this fashion are
already registered FAC (Firearm Acquisition Certificate) holders. What
they are doing is protesting the BILLION+ dollar fiasco that was
originally put forth as something that would cost taxpayers $2 million.
The fellows protesting are openly identifying themselves, not hiding
from the law. Furthermore, the federal government has already backed
down on enforcing it and the opposition party (that would be the
Conservative party, not the Liberal party - they are the current
Majority; but I'm sure you already knew that) is attempting to have it
scrapped entirely - something the Canadian Association of Chiefs of
Police also want scrapped. (rumour has it the bad guys have neither an
FAC nor a specific permit per firearm.) That's what this foolishness is
all about - registering EACH SPECIFIC firearm separately.

As an NRA guy, I don't think your would refer to these fellows as criminals.

Bob

Cecil Moore wrote:

CW wrote:

They are breaking the law, yes but I see a bit of distinction here
between
these people and common criminals. The criminal actively commits an
illegal
act. These people retaining their firearms did not commit any act.
They were
declared criminals without any action of their own.


There are crimes of commission and crimes of omission. If a law requires
action
of law-abiding citizens, then inaction is a crime. The Canadian gun laws
caused
the crime rate in Canada to skyrocket.

So if your government ordered ALL firearms surrendered to the local
authority, would you label those who peacefully choose not to comply as
criminals, or libertarians trying to retain freedom for their country's
free citizens? What would "First Freedom" write about them?

Bob wrote:
Check with the Fraser Institute, Statistics Canada, or the any of the
dozens of Universities (including American ones) that keep such
statistics about Canada. On average, things are generally pretty quiet
up here.

Do you deny that you have hundreds of thousands of new criminals
who are violating the Canadian gun registration laws? Don't you
think those hundreds of thousands of crimes add to the Canadian
crime rate?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Tdonaly wrote:
Cecil reads all the inflammatory, right wing, gun magazines and
believes them.


Sure closer to reality and truth than Commie leftie enviro nazis "media"
propaganda. Been there, lived it, escaped from it just to find it to flourish
here at universities and networks.

Just look at the nine lying "presidential hopefull" skunks.
Back to the coils.

BUm

Cecil Moore wrote:

Bob wrote:

Check with the Fraser Institute, Statistics Canada, or the any of the
dozens of Universities (including American ones) that keep such
statistics about Canada. On average, things are generally pretty quiet
up here.


Do you deny that you have hundreds of thousands of new criminals
who are violating the Canadian gun registration laws? Don't you
think those hundreds of thousands of crimes add to the Canadian
crime rate?


What's the date on your magazine? The 'deadline to comply' was midnight,
Dec31/03. So if your article was composed prior to that date, they were
not yet in non-compliance of anything and therefore could not possibly
be the source of this alleged 'soaring crime rate.'

Sorry sir, you're getting pretty far out on that limb - your argument is
just about bent to the ground.

Bob wrote:
That's what this foolishness is
all about - registering EACH SPECIFIC firearm separately.
As an NRA guy, I don't think your would refer to these fellows as
criminals.

They are breaking Canadian federal law. That makes them criminals,
by definition, does it not?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Bob wrote:
So if your government ordered ALL firearms surrendered to the local
authority, would you label those who peacefully choose not to comply as
criminals, or libertarians trying to retain freedom for their country's
free citizens?

Yes!
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Bob wrote:
What's the date on your magazine?

Feb, 2004

The 'deadline to comply' was midnight, Dec31/03.

Yep, about a month ago. It is estimated that approximately
one million Canadians didn't comply with that federal law.
That's quite a skyrocketing crime rate - one million new
criminals as of Jan. 1, 2004. The rate of increase in
violations of "other federal laws" was already around +7%.

So if your article was composed prior to that date, ...

It predicted mass violation of Canadian federal law which
is apparently exactly what happened.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Bob" wrote in message
. ..
CW wrote:

They are breaking the law, yes but I see a bit of distinction here
between
these people and common criminals. The criminal actively commits an
illegal
act. These people retaining their firearms did not commit any act.
They were
declared criminals without any action of their own.

So if your government ordered ALL firearms surrendered to the local
authority, would you label those who peacefully choose not to comply as
criminals, or libertarians trying to retain freedom for their country's
free citizens?

I wouldn't call them criminals at all. I see government as a necessary evil.
There are times when they (the government) needs to be told to back off.

CW wrote:

"Bob" wrote in message
So if your government ordered ALL firearms surrendered to the local
authority, would you label those who peacefully choose not to comply as
criminals, or libertarians trying to retain freedom for their country's
free citizens?

I wouldn't call them criminals at all.

Aren't they criminals, by definition? Isn't violation of a federal
law a crime, by definition?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Cecil wrote,

Bob wrote:
What's the date on your magazine?

Feb, 2004

The 'deadline to comply' was midnight, Dec31/03.

Yep, about a month ago. It is estimated that approximately
one million Canadians didn't comply with that federal law.
That's quite a skyrocketing crime rate - one million new
criminals as of Jan. 1, 2004. The rate of increase in
violations of "other federal laws" was already around +7%.

So if your article was composed prior to that date, ...

It predicted mass violation of Canadian federal law which
is apparently exactly what happened.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


Cecil, do you always drive the speed limit? In this county, (San Mateo County)

there's a law requiring all cat owners to license their cats. Most people
ignore it
(except in Foster City where it's rigidly enforced). Do you want to count all
the
people who refuse to license their cats in the crime statistics? You're putting

too fine a point on your argument.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Yuri wrote,

Tdonaly wrote:
Cecil reads all the inflammatory, right wing, gun magazines and
believes them.


Sure closer to reality and truth than Commie leftie enviro nazis "media"
propaganda. Been there, lived it, escaped from it just to find it to flourish
here at universities and networks.

Just look at the nine lying "presidential hopefull" skunks.
Back to the coils.

BUm


An extremist is an extremist. It doesn't matter if you're yanked out of bed
in the middle of the night by a Fascist or a Communist, you're still yanked out

of bed. I dislike both Fascists and Communists equally.
73,
Tom Donaly

Tdonaly wrote:
Do you want to count all the
people who refuse to license their cats in the crime statistics?

The subject is federal felony laws, Tom. Do you have
an example of a cat licensing federal felony law?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

I think he means DHMO (Dihydrogen Monoxide)

DHMO is the most prevalent greenhouse gas. It causes more global warming
than carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and methane combined.

DHMO is a colorless, odorless constituent of many known toxic substances,
diseases, and disease-causing agents.

DHMO has lead to many environmental hazards, accelerates erosion, is the
primary component of acid rain, and has a profound impact on wild life. The
damage is costing billions of dollars.

DHMO has many immediate, personal dangers. Death frequently results from the
accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in relatively small amounts.

DHMO has been found in all tumors excised from cancer patients.

DHMO is used in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce
remains contaminated by this chemical.

Yet the FDA and other government agencies permit substantial amounts in food
products, including baby food! Even Clinton was afraid to take on the job of
banning it! Al Gore, in his book "Earth in the balance", even claims it may
have been directly linked to the floods in the Mississippi river area a few
years back.

Bob has every reason to be upset!

"CW" wrote in message
...
Typical envirowako. Doesn't even know what it is but its got "one of those
scientific names" so it must be bad. Yes, carbon dioxide is bad. You
exhale
it when you breath. Do your part, help the world, quit breathing.


"Bob Miller" wrote in message

Maybe it was carbon monoxide -- some kind of carbon...

bob
k5qwg

Anyone who thinks the Miami Hearld is "right wing" has never read it...

Cecil reads all the inflammatory, right wing, gun magazines and
believes them.
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

It's worse than that. Breath Carbon Dioxide and you can die!! That's
why the enviro types want it banned.

BTW: It's generally called 'suffocation!'

CW wrote:

Typical envirowako. Doesn't even know what it is but its got "one of those
scientific names" so it must be bad. Yes, carbon dioxide is bad. You exhale
it when you breath. Do your part, help the world, quit breathing.


"Bob Miller" wrote in message


Maybe it was carbon monoxide -- some kind of carbon...

bob
k5qwg

Cecil Moore wrote:
CW wrote:

"Bob" wrote in message

So if your government ordered ALL firearms surrendered to the local
authority, would you label those who peacefully choose not to comply as
criminals, or libertarians trying to retain freedom for their country's
free citizens?


I wouldn't call them criminals at all.


Aren't they criminals, by definition? Isn't violation of a federal
law a crime, by definition?

You know, there's an even greater crime committed every day both here in
Canada and the USA, (and probably everywhere else in the modern world)

Wasting internet bandwidth.

Have a nice day :)
B.
ath0
snip!

Dave Shrader wrote:
It's worse than that. Breath Carbon Dioxide and you can die!! That's
why the enviro types want it banned.

If Carbon Dioxide is eliminated, all the plants will die so
we will all die anyway from lack of oxygen. Carbon Dioxide
is relatively harmless to us until it displaces oxygen. If
the astronauts took enough plant life with them, they wouldn't
need CO2 scrubbers.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Bob wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Aren't they criminals, by definition? Isn't violation of a federal
law a crime, by definition?

You know, there's an even greater crime committed every day both here in
Canada and the USA, (and probably everywhere else in the modern world)
Wasting internet bandwidth.

When one loses the logical argument, one changes the subject. :-)
I think the Canadian gun registration laws are stupid and deserve
to be disobeyed. They are a good example of creating criminals out
of otherwise squeaky clean law-abiding citizens. The drug laws in
this country relating to casual users are another example. When
I was younger and lived in CA, I was a criminal for smoking a God-
given weed on the sidewalks of San Francisco. The police simply
ignored the hundreds of of criminals like me who were smoking pot
while waiting in line for a rock concert.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Yes, but in the context of this discussion, you are stretching it. You're
giving a demonstration of how stats can be made to show any point you want.

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
CW wrote:

"Bob" wrote in message
So if your government ordered ALL firearms surrendered to the local
authority, would you label those who peacefully choose not to comply as
criminals, or libertarians trying to retain freedom for their country's
free citizens?

I wouldn't call them criminals at all.

Aren't they criminals, by definition? Isn't violation of a federal
law a crime, by definition?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

CW wrote:
Yes, but in the context of this discussion, you are stretching it. You're
giving a demonstration of how stats can be made to show any point you want.

No, I'm giving a demonstration of what happens when a country
passes a bad law. Does Canada really want to add a million
felons to its population?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 21:56:29 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Bob Miller wrote:

wrote:

Bob Miller wrote:
-- carbon dioxide is no longer considered a pollutant.

Well, that's reasonable, since all animals create carbon
dioxide and plants need it to survive.

Maybe it was carbon monoxide -- some kind of carbon...

Nope, it was carbon dioxide, one of the "greenhouse" gasses.
Did you see Algore standing out in the coldest weather in
25 years in New York City the other day warning everyone
about global warming?

Didn't see that -- I'm assuming he had a nice earth-tone coat on? Love
that Al.

As I understand it, it is global warming in other parts of the planet
that is disrupting weather patterns and causing that wretched weather
up East, and that is why I'm paying $1.49 for regular gas this week.

Bob
k5qwg

Bob Miller wrote:
As I understand it, it is global warming in other parts of the planet
that is disrupting weather patterns and causing that wretched weather
up East, and that is why I'm paying $1.49 for regular gas this week.

Yep, global warming has replaced The Devil as the source of all evil.
Fact is, we are still in the tail end of an ice age and the climate was
much warmer in the past before man ever walked the earth. Reckon we can
blame that on dinosaur farts?
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

Cecil Moore wrote:

The police simply
ignored the hundreds of of criminals like me who were smoking pot
while waiting in line for a rock concert.
Hey Cecil, ambiguous statement!

Who is waiting in line? You, You and the Cops, or the Cops? :-)

Register People NOT Guns!!

People kill people!!

TROLLING