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).