Honey I found the end of the Internet!!!

Well not the end, perhaps the end of the beginning. Apparently we are running out of 32 bit I.P. Addresses. There is a new system using 128 bit I.P. address (man I don’t want to have to type out many of those!) But it seems many of the new flashy toys on the market can’t read those. You can read more here.

Canadian gun laws explained to a lay person

A great quote I had to share:
To sum up the gun laws to the non gun owner in Canada you can own a black 2011 gmc pickup but you can't own a red 2011 chevrolet pickupThanks to Jennis of CGN

When people give me a puzzled look when I try to explain our gun laws, I tell them: Applying logic to our gun laws will cause your head to explode. (Unless you of course apply the logic used to ban and confiscate all guns, then it makes sense)

Old planes

An interesting blog with pictures of old planes languishing in fields and backyards. the above is the BAC Electric Lightning.

Defiance

Although this picture was taken in Pakistan, it truly sums up what the war in Afghanistan is all about. The Taliban and their allies understand what school and education represents to their vision of the region and to their power. Which is why they blow up schools, kill teachers, beat parents and throw acid on to the faces of school children.

These girls have a courage most of us can not fathom. Every step forward is another step away from the darkness, no matter how small that step. If these girls learn to read and write, thier lives will improve and the chances of their children getting and education increases as well.

Self Defence is a Canadian right

Lorne Gunther hits the nail on the head with his article named Right to self-defence never abolished. Canadians have always had the right to use deadly force as outlined in the Criminal code of Canada Sec. 34-37. where it gets murky is the protection of property and the protection of people in your care. This clearly needs to be fixed because the moment you try to protect your property from theft, you are putting your life in danger. While people claim property is not worth dying for, at what point is enough is enough?
Take for example the street vendor in Tunisia who started the revolt by setting himself afire because corrupt officials took away his only honourable means of livehood, was the property worth his life in a pure economic sense? Clearly the answer is no, but just as clearly, the property meant everything to him and the loss of it meant the final degradation of who he was.
If you don’t protect and defend your property, thieves will take it(including government sometimes), they look for opportunity and weakness constantly and you must constantly be on your guard. In our society property is normally purchased with money, money in a sense is the product of the time that we put into our work so we can enjoy life and purchase that which we need and want. For us time is linear, the time used to earn the money to buy the property can never be replaced. The risk/benefit analysis that everyone uses to determine how much they will do to protect their property is unique to themselves, but almost everyone has a breaking point where they will no longer accept the cost to themselves and the violation of self that theft creates. Once that point is reached no law restraining the owner will matter. Society forms a pact with the citizen saying we will take measures as a whole to protect you and property and in return you will restrain the actions you take to do so. Where that line falls vary between jurisdictions. See more here on Castle Doctrine
The authorities here seem to look at property crime as an almost victimless crime because they assume (wrongly) that insurance will cover the loss, clearly they don’t deal with private insurers very much (Likely because most governments insure themselves) because insurance companies will very quickly jack up the rates of insurance if you submit several claims in a row and will refuse to pay out for a number of reasons.
Protecting others brings up more complicating matters. If you protect your spouse, children or dependents, the courts seem to look at this as an extension of protecting yourself and pretty much the same rules applies. Protecting strangers can get very tricky and even in the US, proponents of concealed carry of firearms recommend caution getting involved into a dispute of unknown origins as you may not really know who is bad and both parties may turn on you. If you use deadly force to protect a stranger you risk losing your liberty despite good intentions and will likely have little protection under the law.
What truly mystifies me about the people that would disarm you and prevent you from protecting yourself or your loved ones is that given the right circumstance the majority would also use deadly force if given the chance to save their lives or the lives of people important to them.
The next time someone says to you “You don’t need a gun and guns are bad” Ask them to state in front of their spouse and or loved ones, that they would refuse to use deadly force to protect them because of their principles and that they would accept the loss of their spouse to protect that principle. I suspect the results of such a statement might create a wee bit of disharmony in the relationship.
The problem with most people who support gun control is that they have not put yet put 2 and 2 together and realized the end result of their desires. They have thrown all their eggs into one basket and that is they have no othrr option than to trust the authorities and government to completely protect them. The fact that Canadian courts have made it clear that police have no legal duty to protect the average citizen is lost on them. In other words if it’s to dangerous for police to help you, they are likely not to come or be ordered not to (see Caledonia).

Here is the relevant section of the CCC in regards to Defense of Person. Read it and understand it, because when the fecal matter hits the circular rotary device, you have seconds to decide the rest of your life.



Defence of Person
Self-defence against unprovoked assault
34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.
Extent of justification
(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and
(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 34; 1992, c. 1, s. 60(F).
Self-defence in case of aggression
35. Every one who has without justification assaulted another but did not commence the assault with intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, or has without justification provoked an assault on himself by another, may justify the use of force subsequent to the assault if
(a) he uses the force
(i) under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence of the person whom he has assaulted or provoked, and
(ii) in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary in order to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm;
(b) he did not, at any time before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose, endeavour to cause death or grievous bodily harm; and
(c) he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 35.
Provocation
36. Provocation includes, for the purposes of sections 34 and 35, provocation by blows, words or gestures.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 36.
Preventing assault
37. (1) Every one is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.
Extent of justification
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to justify the wilful infliction of any hurt or mischief that is excessive, having regard to the nature of the assault that the force used was intended to prevent.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 37.

Coming out of the gun closet part 2

Me attempting to look good in an IPSC competition


Sorry for the lag between posts, kids, work, life and video games keep getting in the way! This is the 2nd post in this series, a link to the preceding post is at the bottom of the post.

Do you need a licence and how do you get one?



Short answer is yes, long answer is that if the gun you have is not considered a firearm then no you do not. These would be pellet guns with a muzzle velocity below 500 feet per second (FPS) and antique guns. Police Officers on duty do not need a licence to carry their issue firearms or taking possession of a firearm while carrying out their duties. It comes to a shock to them that they can’t stroll into a gun store and buy a gun or ammo without the licence. As the executor of a will you can take possession of firearms as part of the estate, see more here.

The current gun licence is commonly referred to as a “PAL” which means Possession and Acquisition Licence. The old licences were called FAC’s and there is also the POL which stands for Possession Only Licence. These are being phased out.

The PAL is a Licence for the Individual. It allows them with restrictions to buy, sell and own guns. It is distinct from the gun registry. To get a PAL you will need to take a course and complete an exam. At which point your application is referred to the RCMP who will investigate you to determine if you have any criminal record or probations. You will need to seek permission from your spouse or guardians (if 16 or less years of age), supply character references. Quebec has Law 9 which is a far more invasive review (and possibly unconstitutional)

Once you have passed successfully through all stages of the review you become the proud holder of a PAL. Make careful note of the expiry date, if you let expire and have guns, you are now a criminal.


What is gun registration and does it work?



The first gun registry in Canada was invoked in 1934 and required you to register your handgun. This was to keep guns out of the hands of undesirables such as union members who were seen as potential communists. The current combined long gun and handgun registry created in 1998 and came into force in 2002 covers both long guns (rifles, shotguns) and handguns. The reason for the implementation of the long gun registry is unclear, proponents claim it helps them keep guns out of the hands of criminals, opponents of the registry claiming the real reason is the eventual confiscation of all firearms. I favour the latter theory as history shows us once the government know what, where and who has them, they will eventually come for them. The former theory is flawed as criminals don’t register guns and handgun crime is rising despite 77 years of a handgun registry. For more on the failures of the registry see my other blog “Epic failures of the gun registry”

How it works
Within the database firearms are identified by what is called a Firearm Reference Table (FRT) Number. Each model of gun known to be in Canada is given a FRT number, without out this number a gun can’t be registered, so if they “withdraw” the FRT number from the database, then the model of gun disappears and the clerks at the CFC can’t find it, convenient way to get rid of unwanted types of guns right?

If I go to a store and say I want to buy a Non-restricted Ruger 10/22 carbine, the store clerk takes my PAL, phones the CFC and requests that a Ruger 10/22 carbine Serial XXXXXX currently registered to the store, be transferred to myself, the CFC checks my record and sees that my PAL is valid and there are no prohibitions on my file. If so they then authorize the store to sell me the rifle, and give them a transfer number. I can then take the gun home, in a couple of weeks (in BC, the CFO office is fairly quick and the ladies are quite nice, Ontario and Quebec not so much) I will get a registration certificate in the mail. I must carry a copy of it with me when using/transporting the gun.
Now if I wanted to buy a restricted rifle or pistol, it gets more complicated, I select the gun and pay the money, the store calls the CFC, they start the transfer process, generally it will take a couple of days to a couple of weeks, when the transfer is complete I can pick up the gun and take home. I will need a Temporary “Authorization to Transport” (ATT), once I get the registration papers, I can then use my long term ATT to transport the gun (more on ATT’s later) anywhere that I am authorized. This process varies between Provinces.



What types of guns can you own?


My Dlask 10/22 target rifle

A non-restricted PAL will allow you to own any non-restricted rifle or shotgun, a restricted PAL will allow to own handguns and restricted firearms such as the AR-15. All handguns except for antiques are either restricted or Prohibited (either by barrel length or calibre). Rifles & shotguns are restricted either by barrel length or by name ( Such as the AR-15 and variants)
Prohibited firearms include pistols with a barrel length of less than 106mm, calibres of .25 & ,32cal. Rifles are generally prohibited by name (FAL, AK-47 and variants) Only individuals that are grandfathers or have certain special licences can posses these. If you let your PAL expire, before getting the new one, you will lose your grandfathered status. If you didn’t bother to convert to the PAL system from the FAC and you own one of these you are screwed.


A Degtyaryov's infantry machine gun (no you can't have one, it's prohibited)

Automatic firearms such as sub-machine guns, automatic rifles, pistols, light and medium machine guns are prohibited firearms, only a select few individuals are grandfathered for these and a number of businesses have licence to posses them, generally for the movie industry. To note I am not aware of any homicide ever committed with a registered automatic firearm. They are just to valuable and expensive.
Lastly antique guns such as early Webely MkII revolvers and old muskets are not considered firearms and do not require a PAL .

Replica guns are prohibited, but the law defining such has been murky, any device designed to look like a firearm that can shoot a projectile such as Airsoft guns are not replicas and are not banned. For more information go to Airsoft Canada.

More to come in “Coming out of the gun closest part III”

Older posts in this series
“Coming out of the gun closest part I”

Herding cats

a little humour to start your weekend

Eye for an Eye

A very good read by Der Spiegel

In the spring of 1989, a Palestinian terrorist murdered an Israeli soldier. Twenty years later in Dubai, the Israeli secret service agency Mossad avenged the killing. The operation succeeded, but nevertheless has become a fiasco. SPIEGEL has reconstructed the attack. By SPIEGEL Staff

He knew that he was a dead man. From the moment he shot the Israeli soldier sitting on the car seat behind him in the face, he knew that they would get him sooner or later.


For Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, it would take 20 years for that day to come. At about noon on Jan. 20, 2010, employees at the Al Bustan Rotana airport hotel in Dubai opened the door of room 230 to find the body of a man on the bed. According to the death certificate, the cause of death was "brain hemorrhage."

At the time, no one knew who exactly the dead man was. Mabhouh was considered to be the chief weapons negotiator for Hamas, the Palestinian organization's main contact to Tehran and the logistician behind rocket attacks on Israel coming from the Gaza Strip.

A man with a pedigree like that doesn't die of a brain hemorrhage. In fact, al-Mabhouh became a marked man long ago.The rest here

Confiscation has always been a Liberal goal

Update
The NRA advises they have been aware of this document for a long time, they have never been able to verify it completely so they have not used it. So you can’t really include it yet with other Liberal underhanded undertakings like, Adscam, Gun registry costs, etc, etc. nevertheless I hold that the main thrust of the document is true and fits the activities of the Liberal connected politicians, police forces and the Canadian Firearms Officers.




The Liberals have claimed confiscation of firearms was never their goal, but this document released in a Freedom of Information request shows that it was exactly their intent Read the rest of this disgusting piece at the Don't tread on me blog.

TSA screening results

Good News!! The TSA "pat-down" is REALLY working!!
Year to date statistics on Airport screening from
the Department of Homeland Security:

Terrorist Plots Discovered 0
Transvestites 133
Hernias 1,485
Hemorrhoid Cases 3,172
Enlarged Prostates 8,249
Breast Implants 59,350
Natural Blondes Only 3

via chain e-mail

Lego set can be found here