Just to set the record straight, from my point of view, I would add that as far as "rights" go, there is a right that is seldom, if ever, referred to -- at least not in my reading/listening over many years --and that is the right to be respected by anyone holding a public office. You are their source of income, their pay, pensions, perks, privileges and even their power. They owe you respect!! As my granddaddy used to say to me years ago, "Respect is like water, it always seeks its own level." And he would add, "If you do not give respect, you do not deserve respect." That is something that public office holders should be reminded of daily. Apparently (at least from my observations over the years) that is something no one has bothered to tell them -- and that includes every public office holder from the top down. Obviously, if the situation exists wherein someone has demonstrated they are not worthy of that respect, that would alter the above -- but under normal circumstances, that saying still holds true.

Whether or not the above comments were necessary or not, I thought it best to add them to my ramblings so as not to be misunderstood.

As for the individual Canadian in this (or any other matter of national importance) you are important and you have a duty to yourself and your family to become knowledgeable of what is happening when "laws to protect society" are bandied about from those holding public office. To ignore those warnings and to not closely examine the "widely supported and 'necessary'" amendments to various laws being contemplated by those in a position to bring about such changes is leave yourself and your family vulnerable to some very dangerous laws.

Not to suggest that all such proposals are dangerous, but if enough people ignore enough "new laws" being proposed, logic dictates that there will be dangerous laws on the books -- and that is not only dangerous but, in my view, unacceptable.

Some examples (and by no means a complete list) of some of the laws that have been proposed and/or passed in various communities because no one was paying attention follow:

One of the southern states recently proposed a law to charge restaurant operators if they served "obese" customers.
One Texas legislator proposed a law that would make it a crime to commit a criminal offence against someone unless the victim was advised 24 hours in advance of the date, time and location and the nature of the offence to be committed.
In Canada there was a proposal by a Minister of Justice to put into law a section with regard to ammunition that would indicate that a person could have in their possession "a reasonable amount of ammunition."
Also in Canada it was stated by a former Solicitor General that "a criminal would sooner use an M1 (Carbine) than a 'gun'" to commit an offence.
And again, in Canada, in the Senate, one astute Senator, waving a copy of Guns & Ammo stated emotionally that: "This magazine even has coloured centerfolds of guns."
And, again, in Canada, a popular radio talk show host pontificated about the fact that: "Anyone can walk in off the street in this country and by a machine gun."

That one was interesting and as I had taped the show and then, without using capital letters or punctuation (so as to avoid being accused of changing the meaning) I typed the complete tirade and when the opportunity arose, I confronted the individual. And his response was: "I never said that." End of conversation.

And one situation which has always been one of my favourites took place back when the "drive-by shootings" in the U.S. was common and told and retold on every newscast. I guess that Ottawa was not to be outdone by anyone and one evening there was a report of the first "drive-by" shooting in the city. So, if you had been driving through the city during those particular newscasts you would have heard the alarming news and, no doubt, repeated that to others at the end of your trip. However, as time passed, it went from "drive-by shooting" to a shooting in the foyer of a high rise apartment. Then, as time passed, it was determined that that was not quite correct and it really was a shooting, but in a 9th-floor apartment. Oh, well, accuracy by the media is not a fundamental requirement. But "news" is, no matter how accurate.

Enough for now. More will come to mind and I shall endeavour to put my thoughts down so one can read them.

Nothing will change the above, but I put them in to demonstrate that there are a considerable number of individuals with a considerable amount of power who think nothing of an emotional tirade to make their point, even if they are wrong.

Again, I wish to digress somewhat, but in keeping with my position that this IS NOT and never was a "gun issue."

Some 35 years ago, or thereabouts, I was called by a friend of mine (who will remain nameless for obvious reasons) who was very nervous because the municipality where he lived had advised him that they were going to "outlaw" his fully automatic firearms. This, notwithstanding the reality that he had never had any problems before, offered no threat to anyone and had complied with all the necessary paperwork to buy and retain those firearms. Indeed, he had gone to great lengths to add a hidden room in his house which was covered by a conglomerate of various alarms. In other words, he had gone far beyond what the law (at that time) required in order to demonstrate his responsible character.

Now, after owning these firearms for a number of years without incident, he faced some "new and restrictive" (if not prohibitive) regulations. Not wishing to offend anyone and certainly not being willing to be caught in a trap that could be construed as "belligerent," he asked if I would appear on his behalf.

The answer was, of course, "Certainly." So I attended city hall and the meeting was held on what was then termed "estimates" night, the night the public was allowed to hear the discussion on what the city council had determined would be the new tax rate, considering the necessary increases for police and fire and all the other items which would be included in the new figures.

I was asked if I would like to have my say early in the proceedings and I declined, being of the view that I did not want to get caught between, "fire," "police," "garbage" and all the rest, so I indicated I would be happy to sit and wait until the "important" issues were dealt with.

When I finally was given the floor, I proceeded with the following position (which to the best of my recollection is accurate and, if not totally accurate, certainly accurate enough to give one the complete picture).

So I started at what I would call the "necessary beginning," in order to make sure there were no misunderstandings of why I would say what I said.

I started off by indicating that what I would be talking about was, in simple language, a citizen. A citizen of the city, and of the province and, obviously, of Canada and subject to all the laws that anyone else was, plus a few extra because of his particular interests. I indicated as I started that if I could be found to be at fault in my descriptions, I welcomed interjections by those who felt I was misleading in any way.

I stressed further that the individual in question could only be referred to as "a productive citizen, engaged in honest endeavour, who recognized the need of law(s) as a "prerequisite to an orderly society" and, further, could be described as "willingly accepting that need" by the very fact that he had no criminal record of any kind and paid his fare share of taxes. As well, his working also paid the salaries of those sitting at the table with us and by willingly paying his share, he was prepared to accept that those who he was supporting as "leaders of the community" would (as would be expected from any public office holder) certainly have his best interests in mind when "bringing about new and/or necessary" bylaws for the community.

This concept was woefully absent from those "leaders" at this moment in time, because they had decided that this individual's interests had to be curtailed "in the best interests of the community," or some other catchy phrase which allowed them to simply ignore some basic realities -- based on what logic, they never put forward.

I then suggested to them that being described as a willfully lawful, peaceful and productive citizen of not only the community, but the province and the country, I would be hard pressed to find any "best interest for the community" in their proposal to ban his firearms.

I then advised them that I had researched (as had the RCMP at the time) statistics and found that there had never been an owner of full automatic firearms in Canada charged with a criminal offence involving those firearms! That was a record worth boasting about and certainly not known by many, and obviously worthy of respect -but that respect was sadly lacking.

Then we came to the nuts and bolts of the discussion which was, quite simply a review of reality.

Considering the individual, his personal record, his social record, his work record and all the rest, the only thing that had to be examined (and I would argue there was no need to "examine" anything in this case) would be another reality. This individual was not a threat to himself, his family, his community, society or the country and, for that simple reason whatever he purchased with the monies he had left after supporting the system and how he used what he purchased was, quite frankly, none of their business, period! As everything he did was already covered by the Criminal Code of Canada, provincial Fish and Game regulations and local regulations, all of which he was and had been in compliance with, there could not possibly be any reason to "protect" anyone or any community from him.

I also advised them that I found myself somewhat embarrassed that I had to take the time to appear before them on such a matter when the individual's private property we had been discussing was governed by the federal Criminal Code and there was no way the municipality could pass any contrary legislation with respect to the purchase and ownership of these firearms.

So I repeat, this is NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN a debate or argument about guns! It is quite simply a situation where some reality has to be inculcated into the reality of "bringing out new legislation to protect society," et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. We have all heard the arguments plus the "If we could only save one life," plea -- all of which have no bearing on the real issue of the responsibility of ALL legislators to only bring about legislation which exemplifies that fundamental principle of: "IT IS NOT A PROPER FUNCTION OF THE LAW TO PLACE A PEACEFUL PERSON PURSUING PEACEFUL ACTIVITIES IN JEOPARDY!

If those so willing to bring about "protective legislation" cannot demonstrate beyond any reasoned argument that there is such a need with respect to the particular legislation they are supporting, then it fails the test. And, if that leaves them with a "problem" then they are beholden to fully research the "problem," "examine the problem," "clearly state the problem," be able to demonstrate that there really is a problem" and then, and only then, bring about legislation which recognizes all of the above and clearly DOES NOT INFRINGE ON THE RIGHTS, PROPERTY AND PEACEFUL ACTIVITIES OF LAWFUL PERSONS. If they cannot do that, it would appear obvious that they should admit their incompetence, or that there really is no problem, or that they cannot find an answer, and forget the rush to "legislate for the public interest," which is a catch phrase used all too often by those thirsty for more power and less accountability. HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE!! YOU ARE PAYING FOR IT FINANCIALLY AND, IF YOU DO NOT STOP THEM, YOU WILL PAY FOR IT IN MANY OTHER WAYS, AS WILL YOUR CHILDREN AND THEIR CHILDREN! And remember, it is not a game. These people are professionals and know what they are doing -- or, the alternative -- they are simple-minded and should not be allowed to hold any public office.

I would like to add a couple of comments to my last entry.

Just to set the record straight, I have absolutely nothing to gain from stating and restating my position on this matter, other than the hope that eventually ALL firearms owners in Canada would unite and use their combined voting powers to bring about what I would see as a most necessary change in our political theatre. I am at an age where the results will not drastically affect me one way or the other.

Having said that, I would add again that not only is this NOT a debate about guns, but rather a debate about proper legislation that begets proper laws because if that is not accomplished and in the near future, there will be NO firearms sports/private ownership in this country. Too strong a statement?? Not if you have been in the same situations I have been in and been witness to over the past 40 years with respect to firearms laws.

Perhaps the clearest comment on the subject of laws was stated by former U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson when he said: "Laws must not be viewed in the light of the good they will do if properly administered but in the light of the harm they can do and the harm they will cause when they are improperly administered." Exactly! Which presupposes the obvious -- there are too many ways laws can be and are improperly administered. And those ways are not there by accident.

Aside from the reality of needing proper firearms laws (as well as all other laws) there is perhaps a more pressing necessity which, if accomplished, will be the precursor to having those proper laws.

That necessity is the need to get yourselves and your various federal M.P.s, provincial M.L.A.s and all the various levels of bureaucrats in positions of "interpreting and administering various pieces of legislation to understand something most have either forgotten or simply do not believe: THEY WORK FOR YOU! YOU are the reason they have their jobs, their (usually) excellent living standards, their pay, their perks, their privileges and those rather comfortable pensions. Those things are theirs because you willingly supply the necessary financial benefits which enable them to realize those benefits. BUT, you had better remind them, time and time again, that such things can be brought to an end.

This would go to another of my pet thoughts on the matter and that is that anyone holding any public office, elected, appointed or hired and who has the potential of "administering" various pieces of legislatin which bear directly on individual Canadians who cannot clearly understand the that fundamental principle that all laws are supposed to benefit lawful persons. Not as they "may or may not" see that person, but the reality that if they have "reason" to believe that person is not a lawful person, the responsibility rests with them to establish that fact beyond argument and to do so immediately.

To do that, you start at the top. You advise your elected "representatives" of that reality and also advise them that failing them using their office to ensure that such is the case (regardless of the supposed 'impossibility') will result in their dismissal from your employ. Period! You do not have to justify why you take that position, it is absolute in the principle of "electing a representative" to protect your interests. That is what you do in an election. And that is what others (who may not have your particular interests in mind) do as well. That is how the game is played. And do not believe for one second that, "Oh, that will not happen," is any kind of haven for you.

All of the above may sound somewhat extreme for some, but that does not lessen the reality of the comments. If you are paying these people and paying them well, IT IS YOUR RIGHT to make such demands on them. Not only is it your right, but it is a fundamental responsibility you have to yourself, your family and the country as a whole. NOT DOING IT is not only failing to recognize those responsibilities but is an invitation to subtle changes which will inevitably turn our social/legal/political system in to something you and your heirs will not appreciate. That is not only a reality of history, but a reality of politics.

Enough for this time (and as always far longer than I intended).

I digress at this point from my ramblings in order to make a couple of points.

I have never considered myself to be a philosopher, nor a writer, nor particularly intelligent. I speak, rather, from my experiences and what I have seen, been personally involved in and from what I believe. Having done that, I would also add that I hold no political allegiances nor do I put forth anything that is representative of a particular religious belief. I have taken the time to clearly state the above in order that I hope to avoid some (certainly not all) criticisms relating to my meanderings.

Hopefully, now I can get on with my views and will state here that what I write does not follow any particular sequential order (unless so noted), but are put forth as they come to mind and I would also note that since I have always been more of a mouth than any kind of 'orderly thinker,' when I am type that chore in itself continually interrupts my train of thought. Hence, sometimes the statements I make may well seem that I am simply repeating myself, but that would only be in the sense that those comments relate to the particular incident I am referring to at that moment.

All of this actually started in 1969 when I received by some method a copy of the then Bill C-69, "An Amendment to the Criminal Code." It consisted of 44 pages (if memory serves me correctly) and, I read it through and through. Not being astute in 'legal language' I am sure I was not overly accurate in my assessment of a good deal of the contents. But, one thing I did notice that deeply concerned me was the absence of any text therein specifically (or even vaguely) referring to absolute protection of peaceful persons pursuing peaceful activities. Why? Why would that be? When I asked for an explanation I was given the flippant response of, "Well, you just do not understand."

That is an interesting comment and one that I have seen used repeatedly over the years in many circumstances, when some in positions of various levels of power do not wish to elaborate on their particular viewpoints. In other words, it is a convenient catch-all phrase that is used to discourage the "unwashed" from being too pushy or inquisitive -- and is used extensively in any many milieus. Internally, I guess it might be referred to as "cover your ass (and mine) and do not elaborate, 'they don't need to know.'" Unfortunately, it works, as most of the time those affected and/or curious do not have the time, resources, energy or money to continue to press for answers.

Now that I have triggered some more thoughts (not necessarily in order) I would like to stress here and now what I feel is one of the most important distinctions we have to understand in this discussion at every level - and I cannot stress this point strongly enough, nor often enough! This is not a discussion about firearms, not in any respect! Any discussion about firearms is an internal discussion within the legitimate firearms community with respect to particular aspects of certain firearms and a person's personal likes and/or dislikes about particular firearms or related subjects. Please, do not get suckered into a discussion about GUNS, good or bad, long or short, military or sporting, concealable or not concealable, et cetera, et cetera. THOSE ARE SUCKER ARGUMENTS WHICH WILL ONLY (AND INTENTIONALLY ) LEAD YOU DOWN A PATH OF ENDLESS AND FRUITLESS DISCUSSION AND DEBATE AND DRAWS YOU OUT OF THE REAL ARGUMENT AND INTO MEANINGLESS ARGUMENTS! And your discussion (argument) can ONLY be about that fundamental principle of law which has historically been a cornerstone of our social/legal system. "IT IS NOT A PROPER FUNCTION OF THE LAW TO PLACE A PEACEFUL PERSON PURSUING PEACEFUL ACTIVITIES IN JEOPARDY!!!!! That principle must be forcefully repeated and repeated and never, ever, be watered down. The moment you allow yourself to be dragged into those specious arguments you cannot win and you cannot bring the discussion back to where it belongs!

Well, so much for tonight. I hope that these comments find a willing audience and that someone completely understands why I have always taken and held the position I do. In my opinion, it is the only way this situation can be satisfactorily solved to the benefit of legitimate firearms owners and the future of the firearms sports.