I thought I might try to explain why I have chosen the title "Enemy" for this blog. Some have accused me to being either "too broad" in my comments, or "too narrow." It would appear it is hard to satisfiy both sides. So, to the best of my abilities, I shall attempt to clear the air.
In my opinion, anyone who would advocate placing any lawful and peaceful person in jeopardy for no "social benefit" is, by any definition my enemy; also, anyone who would see the confiscation of private property as a "necessary solution" to a presumed social problem; also, anyone who would put forth such an idea and pursue it to the point of it becoming "acceptable" law. Included in that category would be anyone charged with framing "Criminal Code" legislation; anyone who would support that legislative approach; anyone who would willingly and knowingly advocate that such an approach would be "necessary" or "acceptable" as a solution approach to "solving a social problem"; anyone who would utilize his/her public office, whether elected, appointed or hired to administer such legislation; also, anyone who would lend their support by way of their public office to such an approach; also, anyone who would enter my private propery in the dark of night, masked, armed and prepared to kill, is my enemy -- as are all those those who initiate and approve such activities.
Those persons are, in my estimation extremely dangerous and could easisly be seen to be a sworn enemy to anyone who believes in the "power of law," as opposed to the alternatve, "law by power" which is strangely and frighteningly, acceptable to some.
Always remember, there is only a two-letter difference between "an orderly society," and an "ordered society." Ask anyone who has seen the inevitable horrors which have always accompanied the "ordered society." Those two societies are only two letters different but two worlds apart -- as clearly demonstrated by history, time and time again.
On that note I am closing for now and will try to continue after I straighten out my thoughts.
To those who may be interested in my ramblings, thank you.

Well, now, although overshadowed by the Olympics for a couple of weeks, news from activities on Parliament Hill is sparse, to say the least.  However, you can bet your last bullet that there is high level activity behind the scenes by all parties, not the least of which is the desire by the Liberals and the N.D.P. to cause the fall of the present government.
That will come about if (and when) either party feels they have the fincances in hand to run and election campaign. And you can bet the behind-the-scenes appeals for funds have been constant. The N.D.P. would not likely at this time cause the demise of the present government by themselves, but they certainly would be happy to help their buddies, the Liberals.
Keep in mind that all these antics, no matter how sincere sounding, in no way have the interests of the country at heart. The only interst that governs this desire (notwithstanding the self-serving sanctimony)is the absolute thirst for power -- no matter what the cost to the country.
Am I supporting the Conservatives by my comments. Perhaps, but only inadvertently, because I fly no political flag and would not, although I have had that opportunity placed in front of my a couple of times in the past.  To give up whatever semblance of individualism I have to bow to "the Party," is not in my nature.  And I do understand fully the need for "team effort," but not at the personal costs exacted by the political parties that I have encountered over the years -- and that includes all of them with the exception of the Communist Party and some other fringe groups.
I do not intend to go on for long at this moment, but I do wish to remind all Canadian firearms owners that your time is rapidly running out, if you do not (for whatever reasons you may feel legitimate) enter into the political arena and demand accountability from any so-called "representative" who may put themselves forth as "the candidate of choice."
You had best be prepared to put out some monies in this fight, because you will one way or the other if you choose wrongly, or remain indifferent. Count the money you have (and continue) to spend on your various firearms interests and understand that if the present trend(s) of the political arena continues, everything you have spent and/or might spend along with the property which represents such spending, will vanish -- period!
Enough for now and for those who may be reading this, all the best in the new year and please, do something to protect your property and your interests which if you do so, you may well pass on to your offspring.
"Til the nest time.

I have not had an opportunity to babble lately, but hope to get going again shortly -- for those who may be interested, thank you and please hang on

     Well, now, it has been a while, but not too much has changed.  Notice how amazingly quiet it is on the political front with respect to "abolishing the long gun registry?"  As is typical in the political arena, "other important matters" are used to more or less reduce the immediate interest in the above statement -- from all parties.  That is not new.

     What is new is that by the time the recess ends in the new year and the House reconvenes, the general thought process in that arena (from all parties) will be that "they" will have forgotten what was supposed to happen, so if "it" does not transpire, then the issue will fade until something else "of importance" takes front and centre stage and by then, who knows, there may be an election and we're all safe now.

     Am I reaching?? I don't think so.  I have witnessed this scenario over the past 40 years repeat itself time and time again -- on a multitude of subjects.  But, as time passes, "the unwashed" tend to go back to sleep.
A case in point -- the price or gas at the pumps.  At one time it was a "major issue of concern to many people."  But, having been fiddled and fooled over the past couple of years with every excuse imaginable (and some downright hard to imagine), the fact is that just now after a week of steady decline in the price of a barrel of oil, the price at the pump fluctuated only once downward and immediately went back to where it was before the "sudden drop of the price of a barrel of oil" and no one (at least not in any way to attract any real attention) has made any kind of noise.  What happened?  The usual.  Keep things muddled enough often enough and it does not take long for the "adjustment" in peoples' attitudes and what was once considered abnormal is now perfectly normal.  Not unlike arthritic pain, once you get used to it, it does not hurt nearly as much.  Ho-hum! -- and besides, we have to watch the Olympics, or hockey, or golf -- or whatever will keep us occupied and away from bothering our M.P.s.

     So, if the long gun registry magically does not disappear and we are caught in an election and the Liberals get back in, guess what??  Instant reprisal for all the agony they have been put through.  And not only instant, but ongoing until what used to be a sport (all facets of firearms ownership and use) will be nothing more than "something I heard about, but that was long ago and really, this is very normal in a modern society."  -- or something along that line.

     Anyway, going to quit again and wish each of you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year and please, try to do yourselves a favour and get going on your M.P. -- ALL PARTIES!!!!!!

Did I just hear loud applause and cheering from across the country????? I will bet it is because you have just heard that the "long gun registry is going to be scrapped." Wanna bet???? Don't go to sleep with too big a smile on your face, looking forward to that moment in time when "that wretched registry will no longer be a sword over my head." Maybe -- maybe not!

One must give the Harper government a plus point for finally "honouring" one of their election promises (if it happens), but it is not a done deal by a long shot.

The Liberals and the NDP may demonstrate their anger, frustration and any number of "supposed" emotions over having to "support the government in voting in favour of such a "terrible piece of legislation" which the "people of Canada will never forgive them for as crime soars to new heights," et cetera, et cetera, et cetera -- and so on.

However, politics is an interesting game and here is a distinct possibility: the Liberals and NDP will constantly attempt to "gut" the bill as it goes through committee and if and when it should happen to reach 3rd reading in the House, it must get through the Senate. And, as we all know, the Liberals control the Senate (and none of them are elected, so they can "play politics," or demonstrate their "horror at the thought of removing the long gun reigstry," et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseum. But the reality is that the Liberals and the NDP in the House will sit in the bushes waiting for a major gaff from the government, one that everyone will agree is unacceptable (and having nothing to do with the registry or its intent), or there will be "another demonstration of a man gone mad and shooting innocent people as a 'direct result' of this registry being removed." Or there could be any number of other situations which politically would allow the bringing down of the government and forcing an election, if the polls appear to favour it.

When that does happen and, if the political winds shift enough and the Liberals are lucky enough to regain power I can GUARANTEE WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that the registry will be immediately reincarnated and EVERY NAME, ADDRESS AND FIREARM NUMBER THAT IS IN THERE NOW WILL BE AGAIN AVAILABLE! That registry is already sitting on another computer somewhere and will be made available to the Liberals INSTANTLY! And should you have any doubts as to their intent when that does happen, read their own words on their website. And if you do not have that available, that information can be gotten from any number of sources (starting with your own M.P.)

For the moment, I will end these comments, but I had to take time and make the effort to warn you of what will happen in you do not get into the fight and do it now.

We will see what transpires as time passes, so enjoy whatever time you have left as a "legitimate firearms owner in Canada."

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.