You know, I've seen this addressed on different forums.  First off I feel sorry for the man over the loss of his thumb.  In days of old when a kingdom fell, oftimes the king was kept as a trophy slave, to bring out and show him off to other visiting notoriety.  The custom then was to execute the heirs (the king's sons) in front of his face and then cut off  "the great toes (big toes) and thumbs" of those kings.  Without a thumb, the hand becomes useless for anything but scratching or maybe a little nose picking.  Without a big toe the deposed king could not run, but only stumble, standing was even a problem because of the value of the big toe for simple balance while standing.  By removing these four basic appendages the king was nothing but a laughing stock and an example to others to "stay in line."

    This being said, while it is sad to see him lose a thumb………HE IS AN IDIOT!  What kind of unorthodox grip was he using to even get his thumb up to the area of where the cylinder meets the barrel.  I have held this behemoth of a pistol, but never fired one.  This gun is between $1500 and $2000 depending on what kind of bells and whistles you want on this monster.  To be quite honest, there are but a only a very few game animals that this gun is even necessary for and most of those are not native to the United States of America.  His lawsuit I find utterly repulsive due to the fact that it was his own stupidity that brought this tragedy upon him. 

The biggest handgun I've ever owned that might be necessary in North America was a 7-1/2inch Freedom Arms Model 83 Premier Grade in a .454 Casull.  I remember shooting a nice white tail buck with one of my friends watching from a nearby blind.  His remark was, "that's the first time I've seen a deer picked up, body slammed, and field dressed all at the same time." 

I am not trying to control this man's right to own this or any other handgun.  One of the funniest remarks I have heard came from an individual while I was visiting Bud's Gun Shop (budsgunshop.com).  "It's  a shame that the gun didn't go off between his legs, if that type of stupidity can be passed along genetically we'd have been a whole lot farther ahead!"  While harsh, I think the real tragedy here is that Smith & Wesson might make this guy an offer to settle before court simply to keep it out of the court system where attorney fees and court cost don't come cheap.  In a perfect world, I'd like to see them fight him and dog stomp him back to the stone age, but given our twisted judicial system they could lose.

What do you think?

A Democratic senator said Thursday that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor sees a 2008 ruling affirming Americans' right to own guns for self-defense as settled law.

Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., said Sotomayor told him at a private meeting that she will work from the high court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller in future cases involving gun rights. The 5-4 ruling struck down the Washington, D.C., handgun ban and imperiled similar prohibitions in other cities.

Gun rights activists have accused Sotomayor of being hostile to gun rights because she was part of a panel that ruled that the Second Amendment protection of the right to bear arms did not apply to state and local governments.

In that case, Sotomayor and two other judges on the 2nd Circuit appeals court upheld a New York state law banning the possession of "chuka sticks." They said they were bound by an 1886 Supreme Court ruling, but acknowledged the high court could take a different view, particularly in light of the Heller ruling.

Udall said he asked Sotomayor about her view of the Second Amendment during their visit.

"Clearly she spoke to the fact that settled law is just that, and the Heller case has been considered by the court, and she sees that as the law, and she will work off of what the court decided as other cases may come to the court's attention," Udall said.

Other senators have come away from their meetings with Sotomayor concerned about her position on gun rights.

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said Tuesday that he was disappointed that the judge refused to say during their visit that the Second Amendment "protects a fundamental right that applies to all Americans."

DeMint said Sotomayor's statement on Heller "doesn't tell us much" about her view of the issue, noting that she stands by her ruling that held that the Second Amendment only protects against federal government curbs on the right to bear arms — not state or local limits.

"(H)er opinion was that the hundreds of millions of Americans in the 50 states do not have a fundamental right to bear arms. She refused to back away from that opinion in my meeting with her," DeMint said Thursday.

The possession of arms by the people is the ultimate warrant that government governs only with the consent of the governed. Jeffrey R. Snyder

Great Orators of the Democratic Party

'One man with courage makes a majority.'
- Andrew Jackson

'The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.'
- Franklin D. Roosevelt

'The buck stops here.'
- Harry S. Truman

'Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.'
- John F. Kennedy

And for today's Democrats….

'It depends what your definition of 'IS' is?"
- Bill Clinton

'That Obama - I would like to cut his _____ off.'
- Jesse Jackson

'Those rumors are false ……. I believe in the sanctity of marriage.'
- John Edwards

'I invented the Internet'
- Al Gore

'The next Person that tells me I'm not religious, I'm going to shove my rosary beads up their ____.'
- Joe Biden

' America is–is no longer, uh, what it–it, uh, could be, uh what it was once was…uh, and I say to myself, 'uh, I don't want that future, uh, uh for my children.'
- Barack Obama

'I have campaigned in all 57 states. { only in Islam }
- Barack Obama

'You don't need God anymore, you have us democrats.'
- Nancy Pelosi (said back in 2006)

'Paying taxes is voluntary.'

- Sen. Harry Reid

'Bill is the greatest husband and father I know. No one is more faithful, true, and honest than he.'

- Hillary Clinton (said back in 1998)

HOW LUCKY CAN WE BE TO HAVE SUCH BRILLIANT MINDS IN CHARGE OF OUR ONCE GREAT COUNTRY!!!

Urge the U.S. Senate to Protect the Constitution

Contact your two senators today and urge them not to rush to judgment on Sotomayor or approve her based on her biography. Ask the Senate to use the hearing process to examine both her public record and her public comments. The court term for 2009-2010 does not begin until early October, so there is no need to push for immediate hearings. The Senate must take the time to ask the tough questions, fully examine the nominee's record, and protect our Constitution.
May 26, 2009 | Share with Friends

Dear Lynne, Tuesday President Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court, replacing retiring Justice David Souter. As this nomination moves forward, much will be said and written about Sotomayor, who currently sits on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. Will she decide cases based on the law and sound precedent, or is she a judge who will use cases as an opportunity to impose her personal views on the nation - with no right of appeal for us, the American people?

During a 2005 panel discussion at the Duke University Law School, Sotomayor stated that the "Court of Appeals is where policy is made." With all due respect, the American public wants judges who interpret the law and do not act as life-tenured, judicially empowered social engineers. President Obama promised us a jurist committed to the "rule of law," not a legislator with a lifetime appointment to remake public policy.

Contact your two senators today and urge them not to rush to judgment on Sotomayor or approve her based on her biography. Ask the Senate to use the hearing process to examine both her public record and her public comments. The court term for 2009-2010 does not begin until early October, so there is no need to push for immediate hearings. The Senate must take the time to ask the tough questions, fully examine the nominee's record, and protect our Constitution.

Thank you and God bless you.

Urge the U.S. Senate to Protect the Constitution

Sincerely,

Tony Perkins
President

Barack Obama has Nominated a ANTI-GUN RIGHTS Judge for the Supreme Court — Select Below to Tell the Senate to REJECT Sonia Sotomayor:
https://secure.conservativedonations.com/saf_sotomayor_dc/?a=2471

Second Amendment Supporter,

President Barack Obama has picked his nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court…

…And it's a "slap in the face" at gun rights and the Second Amendment!

Can we STOP the nomination of the pro-gun control judicial activist Judge Sonia Sotomayor? YES — but only if YOU join your voice with hundreds of thousands of others, demanding she be rejected!
SEND YOUR BLAST FAXES NOW TO EVERY SINGLE
U.S. SENATOR, DEMANDING THEY REJECT THE
ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT JUDGE SOTOMAYOR!
https://secure.conservativedonations.com/saf_sotomayor_dc/?a=2471

You see, we already know how this nominee would rule on Second Amendment rights: she doesn't believe we HAVE any!

Judge Sotomayor, a New York native, ruled on a Second Circuit Appeals Court panel that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and does not apply to the states in the case of Maloney v. Cuomo. This ruling is in direct conflict with a Ninth Circuit Court ruling in the Nordyke v. King case in California, that the Second Amendment IS incorporated through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

So what does it mean, that Obama now nominated Sotomayor to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court? It means that any progress we've been making lately… WILL BE REVERSED.

While Democrats in Congress have been making great strides in the gun rights arena, refusing to consider a renewal of the Clinton gun ban, and offering overwhelming bipartisan support for legislation allowing citizens to carry firearms in national parks… President Obama just demonstrated that he prefers judges who OPPOSE Second Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court may take up this issue of incorporation during its next session beginning in October, because attorneys in the Maloney case plan to appeal in late June.

So, JUDGE Sotomayor ruled against our Second Amendment gun rights in Maloney v. Cuomo. If the Maloney appeal is accepted by the Supreme Court… would JUSTICE Sotomayor recuse herself from deliberations?

It's doubtful a judicial activist would ever do that!
SEND YOUR BLAST FAXES NOW TO EVERY SINGLE
U.S. SENATOR, DEMANDING THEY REJECT THE
ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT JUDGE SOTOMAYOR!
https://secure.conservativedonations.com/saf_sotomayor_dc/?a=2471

Judge Sotomayor has also written an opinion that declined to order the release of certain information under the Freedom of Information Act. In one case, according to SCOTUSblog, she wrote that the "unwarranted invasion of privacy" for individuals whose names would be release under an FOIA request outweighed the public interest.

So, JUDGE Sotomayor seemed to rule to protect privacy rights…Would JUSTICE Sotomayor be just as protective of the privacy rights of concealed carry permit holders if a newspaper wanted to publish that information? Or is it more likely that an anti-Second Amendment judicial activist like Sotomayor would reject our privacy rights, in the interest of "protecting the public"?

What do YOU think?

We need to make sure that during the upcoming Senate confirmation hearings, someone asks about her positions on incorporation and the privacy rights of gun owners. Every single one of these Senators need to be told by the American people that the Second Amendment needs to be expanded, not slashed down even more!

SEND YOUR BLAST FAXES NOW TO EVERY SINGLE
U.S. SENATOR, DEMANDING THEY REJECT THE
ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT JUDGE SOTOMAYOR!
https://secure.conservativedonations.com/saf_sotomayor_dc/?a=2471

Please, take action right away to STOP this anti-Second Amendment judicial activist from being confirmed to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court!

Sincerely yours,

Alan M. Gottlieb
Second Amendment Foundation

Several years back I was looking for a job and hired a high end "head hunter".   A head hunter is someone who finds a job that will match your ability to the upper endof the market sector that will not use the local media to advertise for it's opening.  A few days later my head hunter called and said she had found me a job a job as a "turn-a-round" manager, if I was interested.  I was not.

For those of you who do not know what a turn-a-round manager is, I'll explain.  Often companies find themselves behind in operation standards  to their competitors.  Often a financial vortex with a bankruptcy appears to be a growing option unless they restructure their company.  In an effort to survive and restructure the faltering company, they "fire"  the old manager and bring in what they tout as the creme-de-la creme manager.  After a couple of weeks of orienting himself as "the common writ of wisdom", he goes to work.  Coached by his handlers (the company owners), he begins to make radical changes to the politics, the production policies, employee benefits packages, shifts, and tighten quality standards.  He then sets forth to make examples of a few key "trouble making" personnel who have made their views about him quite clear. 

At this point the manager becomes the most unpopular man on campus.  Everybody from the salaried office staff down to the production workers on the floor begin to loathe him and he receives death threats, tire slashing and car chases on his way home, as people try to find out where he lives. 

After several diffiecult months the new agendas are set in place and the company is on the right track to compete with the other companies in the field, but there is one small problem. The factory is on the verge of a strike and major civil disobedience.   A meeting is quickly called by the owners and the employees.  The company says, "we feel your pain and to be quite honest, we did not know that the man we hired was such a rogue.  We apologize to you and as of this morning to show out good faith we have fired this manager."   They then promise to bring in a blue blood instead of an outsider.  They promote someone from within and give everybody a token raise.  It makes the people feel like they've been heard and vindicated.   The company, on the other hand, has their new agenda in place and are now ready to compete in a global market, but  do not remove many if any of the new policies.  The turn-a-round manager gets a large bonus for having done his part………….he's known all along that this was going to be the outcome before he was hired.

HERE IS THE APPLICATION ON CAPITOL HILL.

Our current chain of command is Obama as Commander-in-Chief.  Second, we've got Joe "can I fit both feet in my mouth" Bidden as V.P.  Third, we have Nancy "can I have some more plastic surgery" Pelosi.  Fourth, and not last, is Billary Clinton.  I'll grant you things cannot look much worse to a conservative American.

This is where things get interesting.  Suppose Joe Bidden's health were to fail?  A replacement has to be made and an ultra liberal like Nancy Pelosi would cause civil unrest immediately.  Instead, Billary is brought in as the new V.P.   Thinking he has a solid cabinet with backing to further his own disarming of America, Obama goes back to the giveaway of America to complete his "globalist" agenda.  There is one small problem.  I figure this will be about 2 years into his term and conservatives and liberals alike will be sick and tired of this "teleprompter prince."   All of the sudden from nowhere, the sealed birth records of Barack Hussein Obama will be made public (the Clinton's will covertly have it done and blame it on the hate mongering Republicans) and it will be proven that he is ineligible to be President.  The "turn-a-round man"  is complete, dinner is served, and Hillary is president.  She makes flowery speeches and appoints him to some cabinet post in a place you didn't know existed.

Conspiracy maybe, but in times like these………….nothing is impossible.

Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009

Very Important for you to be aware of a new bill HR 45 introduced into the House…

This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009.

We just learned yesterday about this on the Peter Boyles radio program.

Even gun shop owners didn't know about this because it is flying under the radar.

To find out about this - go to any government website and type in HR 45 or Google HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009 . You will get all the information.

Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm - any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless:

.It is registered

.You are fingerprinted

.You supply a current Driver's License

.You supply your Social Security #

.You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing.

.Each update - change or ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25 - Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail.

.There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 stating a child-access provision. Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18.

They would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is punishable for up to 5 yrs. in prison.

If you think this is a joke - go to the website and take your pick of many options to read this. It is long and lengthy. But, more and more people are becoming aware of this. Pass the word along. Any hunters in your family - pass this along.

Peter Boyles is on this and having guests. Listen to him on KHOW 630 a.m. in the morning. He suggests the best way to fight this is to tell all your friends about it and "spring into action". Also he suggests we all join a pro-gun group like the Colorado Rifle Association, hunting associations, gun clubs and especially the NRA.

This is just a "termite" approach to complete confiscation of guns and disarming of our society to the point we have no defense - chip away a little here and there until the goal is accomplished before anyone realizes it.

This is one to act on whether you own a gun or not.

If you take my gun, only the criminal will have one to use against me. HR 45 only makes me/us less safe. After working with convicts for 26 years I know this bill, if passed, would make them happy and in less danger from their victims.

http://gunowners.org/hr45ana.htm

http://www.infowars.com/hr-45-may-be-more-troubling-than-the-average-anti-gun-bill/
http://thetalon.us/?p=383
http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2009/01/13/hr-45/

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.45:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/show

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45

Please.. copy and send this out to EVERYONE in the USA .

Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009

Very Important for you to be aware of a new bill HR 45 introduced into the House…

This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009.

We just learned yesterday about this on the Peter Boyles radio program.

Even gun shop owners didn't know about this because it is flying under the radar.

To find out about this - go to any government website and type in HR 45 or Google HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009 . You will get all the information.

Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm - any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless:

.It is registered

.You are fingerprinted

.You supply a current Driver's License

.You supply your Social Security #

.You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing.

.Each update - change or ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25 - Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail.

.There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 stating a child-access provision. Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18.

They would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is punishable for up to 5 yrs. in prison.

If you think this is a joke - go to the website and take your pick of many options to read this. It is long and lengthy. But, more and more people are becoming aware of this. Pass the word along. Any hunters in your family - pass this along.

Peter Boyles is on this and having guests. Listen to him on KHOW 630 a.m. in the morning. He suggests the best way to fight this is to tell all your friends about it and "spring into action". Also he suggests we all join a pro-gun group like the Colorado Rifle Association, hunting associations, gun clubs and especially the NRA.

This is just a "termite" approach to complete confiscation of guns and disarming of our society to the point we have no defense - chip away a little here and there until the goal is accomplished before anyone realizes it.

This is one to act on whether you own a gun or not.

If you take my gun, only the criminal will have one to use against me. HR 45 only makes me/us less safe. After working with convicts for 26 years I know this bill, if passed, would make them happy and in less danger from their victims.

http://gunowners.org/hr45ana.htm

http://www.infowars.com/hr-45-may-be-more-troubling-than-the-average-anti-gun-bill/
http://thetalon.us/?p=383
http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2009/01/13/hr-45/

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.45:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/show

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45

Please.. copy and send this out to EVERYONE in the USA .