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.