This is what people are saying about the AWB in Canada, HELP!


PDA






Ardent
September 18, 2004, 03:02 PM
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Winnipeg/Lyn_Cockburn/2004/09/14/629433.html

Can't get enough rapid fire power

By LYN COCKBURN -- Winnipeg Sun


To celebrate the beginning of the school year, the U.S. Congress let the 10-year ban on assault weapons lapse. And so, as of yesterday, Tuesday, Sept. 14, the average American citizen can legally buy a military-style assault rifle such as an AK-47 which can shoot 600 rounds a minute. And by the way, those 600 rounds will cover a distance of up to 300 metres.

Makes me feel safer.

There's a certain Zen-like peace in knowing that if anybody tries to break into my house I can off him with an assault weapon rather than with the handgun I keep under my pillow. Why should a thief get shot only once or twice when I can blast him 600 times?

We are not going to discuss the possibility that the thief will also have an AK-47. As one gun shop owner said during a TV interview (he was looking directly into the TV camera and I felt as though he was speaking right to me): "It's all about balance," he said. "Sure there are lots of criminals on the streets with weapons but if citizens have as many guns as the criminals, it all works out."

That's a positive way of looking at it. Sort of like voting. If I vote Democrat and you vote Republican, we cancel each other out. Then we can get together and shoot anyone who votes for Ralph Nader.

So what's the history on this silly 10-year ban on assault weapons that so unbalanced our neighbours to the south? In 1994, after much lobbying by anti-gun groups (the NRA, by the way, publishes a comprehensive list of all those organizations, religious, secular, medical, etc, which it labels "anti-gun"; go to www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets to see that list; and shame on the YWCA and the Physicians for Social Justice, which are but two of the organizations listed -- they obviously don't agree with the charismatic gun shop owner mentioned above), then-president Bill Clinton in a moment taken from frolicking with interns, signed the bill to ban such firearms. Thankfully, as part of the deal, he had to agree to limit its duration to 10 years. Even more thankfully, the 10 years are up.

One of those very powerful anti-gun groups is of course the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence which was formed after the March 30, 1981, assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan in which presidential press secretary James Brady was shot and partially paralysed. The wimpy Brady and his wife took exception to this event and ignored the greater good which comes from promoting arms. Instead they started lobbying for greater restrictions on gun ownership.

And for some reason, police chiefs across the U.S. were not happy with the lifting of the ban, a fact which is balanced somewhat by the NRA's statement on its website which advised U.S. citizens to "urge your member of Congress to publicly oppose renewal of the ban and instead to support legislation that will actually remove violent criminals from America's streets."

One such politician, U.S. Representative Butch Otter (R-Idaho) praised the demise of the federal law: "President Clinton's so-called 'assault weapons' ban was nothing more than a sop to anti-gun liberals. It provided only the illusion of reducing gun violence, but it did real damage to our liberties."

Bang on Butch. Gun ownership is certainly part of a citizen's liberty. I count the freedom to own an AK-47 as inviolate, comparable only to say, freedom of religion.

I can but dream of the day when Canada changes its laws to encourage all its citizens to buy guns, particularly assault weapons. Trouble is, if I were ever permitted to legally buy an AK-47 in Canada, I'd have to register it.

lcockburn@wpgsun.com

editor@wpgsun.com

If you enjoyed reading about "This is what people are saying about the AWB in Canada, HELP!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Ardent
September 18, 2004, 03:06 PM
Please start writing this imbicile and let her know how wrong she is and give her the straight facts. She is wayyyyyy off base on this one, our canadian forum www.canadiangunnutz.com has been sending her mail with the "truth", but we could use more.

Ardent

Ardent
September 18, 2004, 03:17 PM
I would also add please don't send rants, as tempting as it is. Only intelligent arguments will change their mind, though they themselves seem to be lacking intelligence.

Ardent

boofus
September 18, 2004, 03:21 PM
Her handgun under the pillow most likely WAS an assault weapon under that stupid law.

In Canada you can still buy Norinco M14s and SG550s and Steyr AUGs, all of which are illegal to buy in the US even with the AWB gone. Hello Pot, Hello Kettle.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
September 18, 2004, 03:25 PM
Lets see, what do we have here:

Sneering contempt for the US?...check

Utter ignorance of the subject being discussed?...check

Applause for anyone advocationg a reduction in personal freedom?...check

Smug assumption that no sane person would oppose the author's views?...check

Yep, it's definitely an editorial from the Canadian press.

Cacique500
September 18, 2004, 03:34 PM
My letter to her & her editor:

Dear Ms. Cockburn,

One of your 'articles' was recently posted on a website called 'The High Road' - http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=102156

In this article you state "the average American citizen can legally buy a military-style assault rifle such as an AK-47 which can shoot 600 rounds a minute. And by the way, those 600 rounds will cover a distance of up to 300 meters."

This statement is a blatant attempt at sensationalism (at best) and an outright lie.

The average American citizen CANNOT buy an AK-47 that 'can shoot 600 rounds a minute". What you are describing is a MACHINE GUN which has been strictly regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934.

The average American citizen CAN buy a SEMI-AUTOMATIC AK-47. And as a matter of FACT, they HAVE been able to buy those over the past 10 years, WHILE the ban was in effect. I purchased two of them in 1997. They are not MACHINE GUNS.

I'd be happy to give you the additional details of what the ban ACTUALLY banned. However, I would suggest that you first do a little RESEARCH on your end so you understand the issue a little better.

You also said, "Bang on Butch. Gun ownership is certainly part of a citizen's liberty. I count the freedom to own an AK-47 as inviolate, comparable only to say, freedom of religion. " This statement is absolutely correct. We DO count on the right to own a firearm inviolate and part of our citizen's liberty. Using your example of freedom of religion, what if I told you that nobody needs to practice Christianity? Buddhism is ok (handguns). Islam is ok (shotguns). But Christianity (semiautomatic rifles) aren't.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Please research your material a little more thoroughly in the future.

Regards,

[name]
[address]

Ardent
September 18, 2004, 03:57 PM
Cacique500, very well put. I wrote an email detailing flaws and holes in their theories in the same strongly worded, yet subtle enough to not be taken as a direct insult, manner.

Ardent

Standing Wolf
September 18, 2004, 06:38 PM
There's a certain Zen-like peace in knowing that if anybody tries to break into my house I can off him with an assault weapon rather than with the handgun I keep under my pillow.

Za-zen!

carp killer
September 18, 2004, 06:40 PM
It's kind of odd that the Winnipeg Sun is so anti-gun. Manitoba folk that I know are pro-gun and they tell me the rural people up there are pro-gun too.:scrutiny:

SDC
September 18, 2004, 07:49 PM
Not everyone is buying her crap, though; here's a reply to the above article, printed the next day:


Cockburn firing blanks

Re: Can't get enough rapid fire power (Lyn Cockburn, Sept. 15).

Now that there is nothing to be gained by it, isn't it time the media stopped misrepresenting the Clinton gun ban?

The 1994 ban did not affect AK-47s or Uzis or any other of the scary automatic firearms that have been tightly controlled since 1936. The banned firearms were, and are, ordinary hunting and target shooting rifles with fixtures and accessories that made them look somewhat military; none of them are capable of automatic rapid fire, none of them have ever been used by any military or police assault force anywhere.

Every time the U.S. takes a step back from gun control, the dainty western media raises the spectre of blood in the streets and High Noon at the 7-Eleven. My six-month-old puppy has a longer memory than the journalists who somehow fail to notice that it has never happened, and that the U.S. violent crime rate has been dropping faster than that of any other western nation, while the number of guns in private hands has been rising by more than five million guns a year.

Marc Thibault
Oxford Mills, Ont.

Wildalaska
September 18, 2004, 07:58 PM
Does anybody really care what anybody in Canada says?

Especially Ontario and Quebec?

Talk about an irrelevant country

WildhoserAlaska

hillbilly
September 18, 2004, 08:39 PM
Wildalaska beat me to it.

Who gives a flying Canuck about what some columnist in Canada writes?

California alone has about 12 million more people in it than the entire country of Canada.

The Mississippi National Guard could take the country of Canada in flat-bottomed wagons in about 20 minutes.


hillbilly

Gaspasser
September 18, 2004, 11:21 PM
Here was my reply:


Lyn,
You are so far off base on this, not only are you not in the ball park, you aren't even in the same city as the ball park. First, your reference to the start of the school year is the same cheap trick the U.S. gun banners like to use. It's a thinly veiled emotional appeal to ban guns "for the children", and it rings just as hollow when a Canadian says it. Second, any AK-47, as well as all the other firearms covered by the failed social experiment known as the Assault Weapons Ban, available to any American citizen, is semiautomatic only. I assume, since you are writing with such authority on this topic, you know that a semiautomatic firearm fires one round and only one round with each trigger pull. Unless you are able to pull the trigger 600 times per minute, your AK-47 will not fire 600 rounds per minute.I must also assume that you are aware that fully automatic firearms were outlawed here in the U.S. in 1934, and that by definition, an assault weapon is a military firearm capable of fully automatic fire. The recently expired ban did not regulate fully automatic firearms, even though some unscrupulous journalists with a severe lack of integrity, such as your own countryman Peter Jennings, likes to confuse this issue, stirring as much anti firearm sentiment as possible in a populace that doesn't understand the issue or know the real truth. Third, John Hinkley, the person who shot and partially paralyzed James Brady, did not use a so called assault weapon, he used a small caliber handgun, a firearm not on anyone's banned list, at least not in the United States. I don't know about Canada. Fourth, the NRA position is correct. If you want to deter firearm crime, put the perpetrators in prison, swiftly, every time, without plea bargains, parole, or reduced sentences. Gun control is not crime control, and people who confuse the two are only fooling themselves. There are already thousands of laws regulating firearms in the United States, and more useless laws do nothing to solve the crime problem. The police chiefs should spend more time doing what they were hired to do, which is to enforce the laws of the land, and less time acting like political animals.
And finally Lyn, while you are dissing our Bill of Rights and our civil liberties, how is that great social experiment of yours, the money pit you call a gun registry, coming along? I understand it is frightfully over budget, ineffective, and that some of your citizens are telling Ottawa to stick it. I say hooray for them.

Respectfully,

:banghead:

VaniB.
September 19, 2004, 12:33 AM
[QUOTE]Does anybody really care what anybody in Canada says?[/QUTE]

Amen.

Wildalaska, I'm finally the proud owner of that rifle I bought from you 3 months ago. But really....... couldn't you have informed me that I'd have been better off buying one of these AK things that costs $500 less, and fires 600 rounds a minute? :D

K-Romulus
September 19, 2004, 09:19 AM
in your home, in Canada?:confused:

Ardent
September 19, 2004, 04:10 PM
Certain comments by Wild Alaska bring into focus the image many Canadians have regarding the states. When calling us an "irrelevant country", please keep in mind who is the US's largest fossil fuels provider. Not to mention the exports in power, timber, iron, copper, water... Yawn... This could take awhile. So next time before you insult me and my country remember that YOUR country would be in extremely serious trouble economically and otherwise without us.

One good demonstration of Canadian influence is this; try reading a newspaper without Canada's help, 75% of your newpapers are printed on Canadian pulp. Calling the world's second largest country "irrelevant" is dumbfounding ignorance without peer, especially when Canada provides so many items crucial to the function of the US.

I am not one of the Canadians who view the US with disgust, but comments like that really get under my skin.

Ardent

Telwan
September 19, 2004, 04:17 PM
Ardent is right. That is definitely not taking The High Road.

Ardent
September 19, 2004, 04:18 PM
K-Romulus, for the most part it is, but handguns may still be used in certain cases for wilderness defence. Overall I wouldn't say Canada's gun laws are a lot more restricted than the US's, just different. We are still able to buy Norinco handguns, AR-15, M-14's and such for pennies on the dollar and there are no limits on rimfire mag capacity as well as a bunch of other stuff. Then again, we need a piece of paper allowing us to move our handguns from our house to the range, so it's all subjective. Overall the US is more gun friendly than Canada, then again Canada has higher per capita gun ownership rates than the US.

Ardent

nemesis
September 19, 2004, 04:27 PM
Or............you could log on to www.canadiangunnutz.com and enjoy the freeforall as they gleefully carve up America.

Regardless, what has been said about Canada is distasteful and true. Who does care about what some irrelevent Canadian politician says about the demise of the AWB?

Canada is irrelevent on the world scene. Unfortunate but true. Please do not cast the blame for this upon forum members but you may want to take your own government to task. The Canada of forty years earlier was a dynamic powerhouse and a World Leader but years of voter apathy and a succession of liberal goverments, many under the guise of the "Conservative" party, have allowed Canada to wither to a stump of its former power.

Yes, you are blessed with natural resources and you may want to consider yourself being blessed by having a contiguous neighbor who is ready to purchase those resources. Your profits would not likely be so abundant if you had to ship to world markets and third world nations who fail to pay their depts.

Consider me a fool, for only a fool would declare the Emporer naked, but Canada's new clothes can't cover a heritage lost.

carpettbaggerr
September 19, 2004, 04:40 PM
... remember that YOUR country would be in extremely serious trouble economically and otherwise without us. And we know why 90% of your population is within 100 miles of our border. Just a matter of time before you attempt to invade. :scrutiny:

manwithoutahome
September 19, 2004, 05:09 PM
Screw Canada, they are French and we all know about the french.

That is one neighbor that I wouldn't invite to a BBQ.

Screw em.

Wayne

*PS - you think if we all go AAARRRHHH at them at the same time that they would surrender? France would.

Ardent
September 19, 2004, 05:54 PM
manwithoutahome, get a clue. The bulk of my country has nothing to do with the French. I live about 2000 miles from my nearest French speaking neighbor-province. Also, if Canada is French, then you are not an American either I suppose, you are a national of England or Ireland, or Germany, China, OR France for the matter. Wherever your ancestors came from 200 or more years ago. Are the states French in your mind because of parts of Louisiana? I applaud you on your apparent intelligence.

Also, there is no problem with the French, it is a fantastic country to visit, they were only vilified in a propoganda display in your country due to their belief a war based on questionable motives of WMD's wasn't justified. Well, we know how the WMD thing turned out don't we. Were they wrong to disagree? No. I'm not saying the war in Iraq wasn't justified, only that there was nothing wrong with the French disagreeing with it.

As for Canada not being a military power, I don't measure power in military terms, as much of the civilised world doesn't either. I'm always surprised by a certain way of thinking, like "we can kick their ass", so what? I'm proud of my non-militant country, to me that is a great attribute. I don't want to be part of a country that spends massive amounts on military, it is better spent in other areas in my opinion, which will differ from yours.

This whole thread has left me with a bad taste regarding the mindset of some members. I have many American friends, and not one typified the "American Image" many people round the world view with such distaste, that is, "only we matter". I've always been a defendent of The US here in Canada, hence why I started this thread.

Ardent

manwithoutahome
September 19, 2004, 06:07 PM
Ardent,

BC Canada is actually a member of the US and are welcome, you folks have your wits and your minds about you. I was speaking of the northernen Canadian provinces.

If you could just do a vote and become part of the US then you would be more then welcome. As Canada as a whole goes, so does my post.

Wayne

mountainclmbr
September 19, 2004, 08:34 PM
I have been to Ottawa several times in the last few years on matters related to the Canadian military. Going through Canadian Immigration there is brutal for people who do work like me. They just wire brush you, have multiple people questioning you and generally treat you like trash, no like a child molestor. The coordination done by the Canadian military only seemed to make things much, much worse. I would have a much easier time if I worked for a mid-eastern terrorist organization.

The wait time and expense for the health care system, the desperate people who must come here for urgent medical care and the billion dollar plus gun registration system make me wonder what they are putting in the water up there. I realize that there is an urban/rural split just like in the USA. But, every new socialist policy implemented in Canada just makes the Schumers, Clintons, Kennedys and Kerrys fight even harder to gain that kind of power over the people here.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
September 19, 2004, 08:59 PM
Also, there is no problem with the French, it is a fantastic country to visit, they were only vilified in a propoganda display in your country due to their belief a war based on questionable motives of WMD's wasn't justified. Well, we know how the WMD thing turned out don't we. Were they wrong to disagree? No. I'm not saying the war in Iraq wasn't justified, only that there was nothing wrong with the French disagreeing with it.


Off topic but there's 60 years worth of backstabbing that the French have carried out against the US that you're glossing over.

Your dismissive comments notwithstanding, the American people are well justified in their contempt for the French people, their culture, their history, their politics, and their government for reasons which go well beyond the Iraqi war.

As for French culture and visiting France; French wine sucks compared to California wine. They clarify it with bovine blood, mix it with grain alcohol, put sulfites in it, then ship it out. All of which is illegal in the USA. French cars are a joke, they don't build a decent motorcycle, their women have hair in places that even monkeys don't, and they spit on Lance Armstrong repeatedly in an Alpine leg of the last Tour de (Toilet) France.

France and the French suck, period.

Ardent
September 19, 2004, 10:06 PM
"their women have hair in places that even monkeys don't

That lightened the mood for me, I couldn't hold a stern face after reading that one. :lol:

Well put.

Ardent

Malice
September 19, 2004, 10:25 PM
...

"the American people are well justified in their contempt for the French people, their culture, their history,"

...

Like what?

mountainclmbr
September 19, 2004, 10:53 PM
Malice,

Have you ever travelled to France or read the history of WWII?

In WWII, France was defeated by Germany in short time. Germany invaded North Africa next. Countries in N. Africa that were French colonies, but had not been defeated yet fired on the allies, siding with Germany. After saving their butts, the French seem to have only contempt for us.

I was on a mountain climbing trip to Chamonix, France over 10 years ago. People would cross the street to insult me. I don't know how they knew I was from the USA. After climbing several mountains in France we returned to Chamonix to sleep in a real bed and clean up before travelling to Switzerland to attempt climbs on the Matterhorn and the Eiger. The French hotel cleaning staff threw us out at 6a.m. so they could clean the room. We were so tired and didn't see anyone else being thrown out at that hour. Thank God we were not in Paris! The French don't bathe often either! Switzerland was nice, I won't go to France again.

The next time the Germans should be required to keep France. It would be just punishment for both!

Ardent
September 20, 2004, 01:14 AM
That is mighty strange. I've travelled to France many times and have always received warm welcome, and I look and sound just like an American by outward appearences. The only complaint I have regarding a French national was one waitress at a cafe in Paris, but hey, you run into bitchy waitresses anywhere you go.

Ardent

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
September 20, 2004, 01:26 AM
Malice:

Like what?

Like refusing to allow US F111's to overfly France on their way to bomb Libya in retaliation for the La Belle Discotheque bombing.

And dozens more examples of French cowardice just like that one.

I had forgotten this detail of the raid, I laughed out loud when I read it:

"In order to avoid approaching missiles, American planes over Tripoli inadvertently hit the French embassy and residential neighborhoods, killing many civilians. "

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/php/documents/collection_5/texts/intro_schaefer.pdf

(Oops, Sorry about that Frenchie, Guess our pilots were kinda tired on account of having to fly all the frickin way around your stinkin country after you refused our overflight request. Tired pilots will make those kinda mistakes ya know).
:D

rick_reno
September 20, 2004, 11:41 AM
It is probably not going too far to say that America owes its independence to foreign intervention and aid, especially from France. Starting in 1775, the French monarchy sent arms, clothing, and ammunition to America; it also sent soldiers and the French Navy. Most importantly, the French kept the United States government solvent by lending it the money to keep the Revolution alive. The magnitude of French support of the American Revolution can be glimpsed at the battle of Yorktown. There, the majority of George Washington's 15,000 man Continental Army were French soldiers. Washington's men were clothed by the French, the rifles they used were French, and French gold paid their wages. Nor must we forget that it was the French Navy that trapped Cornwallis's soldiers at Yorktown by preventing English ships sent from New York from rescuing the British army.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
September 20, 2004, 11:55 AM
It is probably not going too far to say that America owes its independence to foreign intervention and aid, especially from France

Yes it is, it's going way to far to say that. The American forces were going to win the Revolutionary war with or without the active support of the French.

French assistance only helped speed the British decision that hanging on to the American colonys was a lost cause.

And,

Since cultures typically evolve over time, what does their very minor contribution to US independence 225+ years ago have to do with the abject cowardice that typifies French foreign policy over the past 60 years.

Where were they when US forces landed at Normandy?

Where were they when it came time to vote in the UN on a resolution supporting US military action in Iraq? Out counting the money from the oil contract bribes Saddam paid them no doubt.

Hawkmoon
September 20, 2004, 11:59 AM
My e-mail to the author:
Quote:

"To celebrate the beginning of the school year, the U.S. Congress let the 10-year ban on assault weapons lapse. And so, as of yesterday, Tuesday, Sept. 14, the average American citizen can legally buy a military-style assault rifle such as an AK-47 which can shoot 600 rounds a minute. And by the way, those 600 rounds will cover a distance of up to 300 metres."

Since you are a Canadian, might I be so bold as to suggest that you confine your comments to matters affecting your country, and let us run our country as we wish?

Or, if that's too much to ask, since you apparently claim to be a journalist why don't you at least do a bit of fact checking before engaging your keyboard? Any military type firearm capable of automatic or burst mode operation has been illegal in the United States and remains illegal despite the sunset of the so-called assault weapons ban. Furthermore, even those weapons capable of full automatic operation have magazines with finite capacities. The cyclic rate of fire for an AK-47 in automatic mode (which, I remind you, remains illegal unless the owner purchses a special license to own an automatic weapon) may be 600 rounds per minute, but all that means is that a 30-round magazine will be empty in 0.05 seconds. The weapon is essentially uncontrollable at that rate of fire, so you needn't fear hitting that burglar with too many excess rounds. I assure you they'll all be in the ceiling.

I suggest that you turn in your press card and resign your position immediately, as you are unsuited to be a "journalist."

Very truly yours,

xxx

rick_reno
September 20, 2004, 12:37 PM
Yes it is, it's going way to far to say that. The American forces were going to win the Revolutionary war with or without the active support of the French.

This, if nothing else, shows your complete lack of knowledge of early American history. If you've got sources to back up that ridiculous statement - post them.

hayseed
September 20, 2004, 01:00 PM
I have to chime in whith wildalaska and hillbilly: why do Canada and England spend so much time worrying about our laws and the way we do things? I have watched BBC news a couple of times just to compare with our network news, and noticed that at least half of their newscast deals with the US and US policies and laws.:confused:

S Roper
September 20, 2004, 02:30 PM
"Bang on Butch. Gun ownership is certainly part of a citizen's liberty. I count the freedom to own an AK-47 as inviolate, comparable only to say, freedom of religion."

I found this a bit ironic as Canadians recently enacted a so-called "hate-speech" law that criminalizes the public endorsement of an orthodox interpretation of scripture. A businessman in Vancouver was already prosecuted on a similar local law.

nemesis
September 20, 2004, 09:36 PM
Canadians recently enacted a so-called "hate-speech" law that criminalizes the public endorsement of an orthodox interpretation of scripture.

It must be considered that Canadians lost any small amount of control over their government over 25 years ago. Increasingly larger numbers of voters don't even bother to vote because the government has tipped the scales on their own behalf.

Canadians still like to consider themselves free people though and often get irritated when forced to accept that they have no impact, no authority and no credibility with their own government.

So, you see; "Canadians" didn't actually legislate the "hate-speech" laws. These are just more authoritarian acts that are being legislated in their names and there is not one darn thing they can do about it. Except move to America.

Canadians are powerless against their increasingly socialist government.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
September 20, 2004, 11:47 PM
rick_reno:

This, if nothing else, shows your complete lack of knowledge of early American history. If you've got sources to back up that ridiculous statement - post them.

I don't have the time it'd take to fill in the gaps your education left you with.

But since you started with the assertion that French forces at Yorktown made up "the majority" of Washington's force, perhaps you's like to cite a source on that.

Here's one:

"Cornwallis was badly outnumbered. He had 6,000 regular troops, with another 1,500 drawn from the fleet for a total of around 7,500 men. Facing him were 7,000 American regulars, 4,000 militia, 5,000 French regulars and 3,100 French marines (a total of 19,000 men, of whom 12,000 were professional soldiers).

http://www.rickard.karoo.net/articles/battles_yorktown.html

Did the militia also wear uniforms supplied by the French as you claim? Do you have a source for that assertion?

And the numbers of French troops at Valley Forge?

BTW, using the writings of another as your own without attribution is called plagerism. If your going to cite to "E. Wayne Carp's" webpage how about putting the passage in quotes and giving a link to it:

http://www.usna.edu/Users/history/kolp/HH346/carp.html

halvey
September 22, 2004, 01:18 PM
why do Canada and England spend so much time worrying about our laws and the way we do things? Because in reality they are globally irrelevant compared to us?

If you enjoyed reading about "This is what people are saying about the AWB in Canada, HELP!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!