For an old dame, she's got more cohonez than anyone in Washington, D.C. and the right attitude.
Don't jail granny. DEPORT HER TO AMERICA……..WE NEED HER HERE !

The Rambo Granny of Melbourne , Australia

Gun-toting granny Ava Estelle, 81, was so ticked-off when two thugs raped her 18-year-old granddaughter that she tracked the unsuspecting ex-cons down… AND SHOT OFF THEIR TESTICLES!

The old lady spent a week hunting those men down and, when she found them, she took revenge on them in her own special way, said Melbourne police investigator Evan Delp.

Then she took a taxi to the nearest police station, laid the gun on the sergeant's desk and told him as calm as could be: "Those scum will never rape anybody again."

Cops say convicted rapist and robber Davis Furth, 33, lost both his penis and his testicles when outraged Ava opened fire with a 9-mm pistol in the hotel room where he and former prison cell mate Stanley Thomas, 29, were holed up.

The wrinkled avenger also blew Thomas' testicles to kingdom come, but doctors managed to save his mangled penis, police said. "The one guy, Thomas, didn't lose his manhood, but the doctor I talked to said he won't be using it the way he used to," Detective Delp told reporters. "Both men are still in pretty bad shape, but I think they're just happy to be alive after what they've been through."

The Rambo Granny swung into action August 21 after her granddaughter Debbie was carjacked and raped in broad daylight by two knife-wielding creeps in a section of town bordering on skid row. "When I saw the look on my Debbie's face that night in the hospital, I decided I was going to go out and get those rascals myself , cause I figured the Law would go easy on them," recalled the retired library worker.  "And I wasn't scared of them, either - because I've got me a gun and I've been shootin' all my life.  And I wasn't dumb enough to turn it in when the law changed about owning one."

So, using a police artist's sketch of the suspects and Debbie's description of the sickos, tough-as-nails Ava spent seven days prowling the wino-infested neighborhood where the crime took place until she spotted the ill-fated rapists entering their flophouse hotel. "I knew it was them the minute I saw 'em, but I shot a picture of 'em anyway and took it back to Debbie and she said sure enough, it was them," the oldster recalled.

"So I went back to that hotel and found their room and knocked on the door, and the minute the big one opened the door, I shot 'em right square between the legs, right where it would really hurt 'em most, you know.  Then I went in and shot the other one as he backed up pleading to me to spare him.  Then I went down to the police station and turned myself in."

Now, baffled lawmen are trying to figure out exactly how to deal with the vigilante granny. "What she did was wrong, and she broke the law, but it is difficult to throw an 81-year-old woman in prison," Det. Delp said, "especially when 3 million people in the city want to nominate her for Mayor!"

"Both men will need to stand trial for rape after they are released from the hospital," added Det. Delp, "For once it would appear that justice has been served."

Australian Gun Law Update

Here are some statistics that really out to get the attention of other countries.

From:  Ed Chenel, a police officer in Australia

"Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under."

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent,
Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent;
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent in one year)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.   Home invasion as we know it to be. 

Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns.  "You won't see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information."

The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws have a negative affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note Americans, before it's too late!

Will you be one of the sheeple to turn yours in? WHY? You will need it.

I know that the reason you look at this website is for insightful information about guns, gun ownership, and gun laws, but occasionally I come across an email sent to me that is amusing.  Though ridiculous in nature, I thought that I would post this "tongue in cheek" statistic that has absolutely no value.  That being said, it should be readily embraced by politicians everywhere.

Doctors vs Gun Owners

Doctors

(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.

(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.

(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.

Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services.

Now think about this:

Gun Owners 

(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. (Yes, that's 80 million)

(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.

(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .000188.

Statistics courtesy of FBI 

So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

When you review these two statistics together it seems that the sensible thing would be to come up with a bumper sticker that says something like, "Remember, 'Guns don't kill people, doctors do….."

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

Please alert your friends to this alarming threat.

We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!

Out  of concern for the public at large, I withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention!

When you put these two thoughts in the same "post line" you wonder what does one have to do with the other?  While I certainly do not think that I am an idiolog on this idea, I want to give you some food for thought in the underlying agenda that may be ahead.

In the upcoming "census" we are going to be asked a lot more questions than "How many people are living in your house?"  By the way, when the census takers contact me the only thing that I am going  to tell them is the number of people living in my house……..THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A CENSUS!  There is a real possibility that they are going to ask a lot more invasive questions than that.

I believe that when we are found to have guns……….and we will, that the government will take authority and tell you that that our second amendment right is a "high risk" lifestyle.  Once that determination has been made, I believe that we will find that our personal cost of government run health care will dramatically increase.  I believe that we will see tax incentives to buy back our weapons and turn around our risky lifestyle behavior.  I believe that indeed we are putting in a "Trojan Horse" in to place under this government run health care system, the which we have no idea of the total ramifications that it will cause, until it is in place. 

Certainly our health care system is broken, but not to the point that it needs government (to whom it will not apply) should force against the will of the people a change where they will decide what is best for us………but I digress.  I certainly do think that some major tweaking needs to take place.

Due to some recent health issues I have not been managing this website very well and for that I apologize.  I was also a little fearful to put myself on radar by writing articles about in home gun concealment and the burying of our weapons outside the home.  Having weighed the options I have decided to proceed and those articles, and you will find them to be forthcoming.

A special message from:

Obama-Lautenberg Gun Grab White House Gun Agenda Puts You On The Terror Watch List We warned America that Obama's 'support' for the Second Amendment was empty rhetoric.  Now Holder's disclosure has confirmed it. Obama was lying, and now gun rights may be dying. Obama said "I'm not going to take your guns away" and "Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear…I think people can take me at my word." Right now, I wouldn't take Obama's word if he said it rains a lot in Seattle. Obama sent Holder to detail his support for a national gun owner registration scheme and authorizing the government to ban firearm possession for any person by merely adding that person's name to the terror watch list. Fax NOW - Get Your Name Off The List STOP Lautenberg's Attorney General Gun Grab Select Here to Reject AG Gun Ban and Fax All 99 Senators Apparently, law-abiding gun owners have nothing to fear unless they own sport-utility rifles, semiautomatic shotguns, handguns and any other firearm that Obama and his anti-gun attorney general don't like.  Attorney General Holder aggressively detailed the Obama anti-gun agenda in Holder's public statements before the Senate Judiciary Committee: Holder wants national, permanent gun registration system. Holder wants new federal authority to prohibit any person on the federal watch list (reported to be 400,000 names) from buying guns and supports confiscating guns from those on the list who possess them. The latest Rasmussen poll shows waning support for stricter gun laws. Among Americans polled, 75% said the Constitution guaranteed the right to own a gun. The percentage of "yes" answers was higher among Republicans (92%) and lower among Democrats (64%). Among others, 71% answered yes. And, 57% of those polled cited fear of increased government restrictions as the reason for a spike in gun sales. Obama and the White House have now publicly joined Lautenberg as he seeks to ban guns from 1,000,000 US citizens on a secret FBI terrorist watch list. Lautenberg' bill S.1317 would give the Attorney General Holder the discretion to block gun sales to people on terror watch lists.  We must defeat this bill from giving extraordinary powers to limit gun sales to the Attorney General. Fax NOW - Get Your Name Off The List STOP Lautenberg's Attorney General Gun Grab Select Here to Reject AG Gun Ban and Fax All 99 Senators Lautenberg To Reveal Names on Secret List The names of the people on the watch list are secret, and Lautenberg said he was frustrated by the F.B.I.'s refusal to disclose to investigators details and specific cases of gun purchases beyond the aggregate data. Gun hater Lautenberg requested the gun grab study from the Government Accountability Office.   He is using statistics, compiled in the report that is scheduled for public release next week to invade US citizen's privacy and put more restrictions on the Second Amendment.  Lautenberg said he wanted a better understanding of who is being allowed to buy guns. How you ask?  Trial by innuendo and misinformation that has put 1,000,000 Americans and maybe even you on a terrorist watch list without your knowledge by saying: people placed on this government's terrorist watch list can be stopped from getting on a plane or getting a visa, and will also be stopped from buying a gun. Lautenberg wants gun purchases stopped for just being on the list.  Current law states federal officials must find some other disqualification of a would-be gun buyer, like being a felon, an illegal alien or a drug addict. The government's consolidated watch list, used to identify people suspected of links to terrorists, has grown to more than one million names since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. It also has drawn widespread criticism over the prevalence of mistaken identities and unclear links to terrorism. Obama - Holder - Lautenberg Must be Stopped Fax NOW - Get Your Name Off The List STOP Lautenberg's Attorney General Gun Grab Select Here to Reject AG Gun Ban and Fax All 99 Senators Lautenberg and the Gun Grabbers in the Senate are now tying to use the GAO to justify putting Americans on a secret gun ban list.   Obama - Holder - Lautenberg Motives Motives for his latest gun ban to are twofold: First, he is taking small steps to enact gun control legislation.   Second, eradicate the gun culture altogether. All that seems to be on the minds of the Anti-Gun Senators and at the offices of gun control extremists is figuring out how to invade your privacy to erode and eventually destroy the right, and the means, of self-defense.  We must Stop the Anti-Gun Coalition and get ready for the biggest gun control fight of the year from coast to coast. We can not do that without your support. Stand up against this attack! Stand up for the right to not only defend yourself, but to defend your family, your children, your friends, and your classmates! Like all other threats against our freedoms, we must rise and defeat this bill from giving extraordinary powers to limit gun sales to the Attorney General. In order to stop Lautenberg and his fellow gun-grabbers–we need to let the Congress know with thousands of faxes telling them to leave guns alone. Americans like you who understand what our Founding Fathers envisioned for our nation…and who are willing to fight to defend our Constitution and for what it stands. So please, help the Citizens Committee and me defeat those who wish to gut and trash the United States Constitution. Help me flood the U.S. Senate with a sea of FAXES big enough to drown each and every Senator willing to vote away the Second Amendment.

Myth: Assault weapons are used in 16% of homicides
Fact: This figure was concocted to promote an “assault weapons” bill in New York. The classification scheme used encompassed most firearms sold in the U.S. since 1987 (center fire rifles and shotguns holding more than six cartridges, and handguns holding more than 10 rounds). By misclassifying “assault weapons,” they expanded the scope of a non-problem.
“Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic, purely symbolic move … Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.”
Charles Krauthammer
Syndicated Columnist
The Washington Post, April 5, 1996
Myth: The 1994 (former) Federal Assault Weapons Ban was effective
Fact: “ … we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.”25
Fact: The ban covered only 1.39% of the models of firearms on the market, so the ban’s effectiveness is automatically limited.
Fact: “The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.”26
27Fact: “The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.”
Fact: “The ban triggered speculative price increases and ramped-up production of the banned firearms.”28
22 U.S. Code title 26, subtitle E, Chapter 53, subchapter B, part 1, section 5845
23 BATF test as reported in the New York Times, April 3, 1989
24 Congressional testimony, Jimmy Trahin, Los Angeles Detective, Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, May 5, 1989, 101st Congress, 1st Session, Washington, DC, US Government Printing Office, May 5, 1989, p. 379
25 An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003, National Institute of Justice, June 2004
26 Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96, National Institute of Justice, March 1999
27 Ibid
28 Ibid Gun Facts Version 5.1 Page 4
Copyright 2009, Guy Smith www.GunFacts.info All Rights Reserved
Fact: “The ban … ramped-up production of the banned firearms prior to the law’s implementation”29 and thus increased the total supply over the following decade.
Fact: The Brady Campaign claims that “After the 1994 ban, there were 18% fewer ‘assault weapons’ traced to crime in the first eight months of 1995 than were traced in the same period in 1994.” However they failed to note (and these are mentioned in the NIJ study) that:
1. “Assault weapons” traces were minimal before the ban (due to their infrequent use in crimes), so an 18% change enters the realm of statistical irrelevancy.
2. Fewer “assault weapons” were available to criminals because collectors bought-up the available supply before the ban.
Myth: Nobody needs an assault weapon
Fact: Recall the Rodney King riots in that anti-gun city of Los Angeles. Every major news network carried footage of Korean storeowners sitting on the roofs of their stores, armed with “assault weapons.”30 Those were the stores that did not get burned to the ground, and those were the people that were not dragged into the street and beaten by rioters. “You can’t get around the image of people shooting at people to protect their stores and it working. This is damaging to the [gun control] movement.”31
Fact: There are many reasons people prefer to use these firearms:
• They are easy to operate
• They are very reliable in outdoor conditions (backpacking, hunting, etc.)
• They are accurate
• They are good for recreational and competitive target shooting
• They have value in many self-defense situations
Fact: There are many sports in which these firearms are required:
• Many hunters use these firearms
• Three-gun target matches
• Camp Perry competitions, especially the Service Rifle events
• DCM/CMP competitions
• Bodyguard simulations
Fact: Ours is a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs.
29 Ibid
30 Washington Post, May 2, 1992
31 Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, Washington Post, May 18, 1993 Gun Facts Version 5.1 Page 5
Copyright 2009, Guy Smith www.GunFacts.info All Rights Reserved
GUNS IN OTHER COUNTRIES
Myth: Countries with strict gun control have less crime
Fact: In America, we can demonstrate that private ownership of guns reduces crime, but from country to country there is no correlation between gun availability and the violent crime rate. Consider this:
Crime Rate
High
Low
United States
Switzerland
High
Gun Availability
Mexico
Japan
Low
Or, to use detailed data, we can contrast the per capita homicide rate with the per capita gun ownership rate between different industrialized countries (see graph below). Doing so shows zero correlation between the availability of guns and the overall homicide rate.
Fact: Countries with the strictest gun-control laws also tended to have the highest homicide rates.32
Fact: According to the U.N., as of 2005, Scotland was the most violent country in the developed world, with people three times more likely to be assaulted than in America. Violent crime there has doubled over the last 20 years. 3% of Scots had been victims of assault compared with 1.2% in America.33
Fact: “… the major surveys completed in the past 20 years or more provides no evidence of any relationship between the total number of legally held firearms in society and the rate of armed crime. Nor is there a relationship between the severity of controls imposed in various countries or the mass of bureaucracy involved with many control systems with
Gun Ownership and Homicide Rates
32 Violence, Guns and Drugs: A Cross-Country Analysis, Jeffery A. Miron, Department of Economics, Boston University, University of Chicago Press Journal of Law & Economics, October 2001.
33 Scotland tops list of world's most violent countries, The Times, September 19, 2005 Gun Facts Version 5.1 Page 6
Copyright 2009, Guy Smith www.GunFacts.info All Rights Reserved
34the apparent ease of access to firearms by criminals and terrorists.”
35Fact: Switzerland has relatively lenient gun control for Europe, and has the third-lowest homicide rate of the top nine major European countries, and the same per capita rate as England and Wales.36
Fact: Indeed, the Swiss basically have a military rifle in nearly every closest. “Everybody who has served in the army is allowed to keep their personal weapon, even after the end of their military service.”
37
Contact Crime Victimization Rates
Fact: “We don’t have as many guns [in Brazil] as the United States, but we use them more.”38 Brazil has mandatory licensing, registration, and maximum personal ownership quotas. It now bans any new sales to private citizens. Their homicide rate is almost three (3) times higher than the U.S.39
Fact: In Canada around 1920, before there was any form of gun control, their homicide rate was 7% of the U.S rate. By 1986, and after
34 Minutes of Evidence, Colin Greenwood, Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, January 29, 2003.
35 In Switzerland, handguns are obtainable once a person obtains a simple police permit which is valid for six months. Federal law over weapons, weapon accessories and ammunition (weapon law, WG), Federal Assembly of the Swiss Confederation, May 2007 - http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/5/514.54.de.pdf
36 Carol Kalish, International Crime Rates, Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report (Washington: Department of Justice, May 1988). 1984 data for Switzerland, and the 1983 data for England and Wales.
37 Army rifles remain racked at home, Swiss Defense Ministry statement, May 15, 2004, http://www.swissinfo.org .
38 Chocolates for guns? Brazil targets gun violence, Rubem César Fernandes, executive secretary of Viva Rio, a nongovernmental agency that studies urban crime, Christian Science Monitor, August 10, 1999
39 Homicide trends in the United States, U.S. data: Bureau of Justice Statistics, September, 2004. Brazil data: Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2005.
Gun Facts Version 5.1 Page 7
Copyright 2009, Guy Smith www.GunFacts.info All Rights Reserved
significant gun control legislation, Canada’s homicide rate was 35% of the U.S. rate – a significant increase. 40 In 2003, Canada had a violent crime rate more than double that of the U.S. (963 vs. 475 per 100,000).41
Fact: Many of the countries with the strictest gun control have the highest rates of violent crime. Australia and England, which have virtually banned gun ownership, have the highest rates of robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force of the top 17 industrialized countries.42
Fact: The crime rate is 66% higher in four Canadian Prairie Provinces than in the northern US states across the border.43
Fact: Strict controls over existing arms failed in Finland. Despite needs-based licensing, storage laws, transportation restrictions,44 Finland experienced a multiple killing school shooting in 2007.45

Myth: Every 48 Hours, An Analysis Of Assault Rifles Traced To Crime In Maryland
Fact: This claim by Cease Fire Maryland includes firearms never used in crimes. Some examples of firearms traced include:
• 47 firearms found at private residence of a person who passed-away from natural causes, and which were never used in any crime.
• Firearms temporarily taken from owners under court Emergency Evaluation Petitions (the firearms were not used in crimes, but the judge wanted them confiscated until other issues are resolved).
7 Targeting Guns, Gary Kleck, Aldine Transaction, 1997, compilation of 48 metropolitan police departments from 1980-1994
8 Targeting Guns, Gary Kleck, Aldine Transaction, 1997, calculated from Bureau of Justice Statistics, assault weapon recovery rates
9 From statewide recovery report from Connecticut (1988-1993) and Pennsylvania (1989-1994)
10 Criminal Justice Research Center, Department of Criminal Justice Services, 1994
11 House Panel Issue: Can Gun Ban Work, New York Times. April 7, 1989. P. A-15, quoting Philip McGuire, Handgun Control, Inc.,
12 Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96, National Institute of Justice, March 1999 Gun Facts Version 5.1 Page 2
Myth: One out of five police officers killed are killed with assault weapons13
Fact: This “study” included firearms not on the former Federal “assault weapons” list. Including various legal firearms14 inflated the statistics almost 100%.
Fact: Only 1% of police officers murdered were killed using “assault weapons.” They were twice as likely to be killed with their own handgun.15
Fact: One 2006 federal government study found zero “assault weapons” were used to kill cops.16
Myth: Assault weapons are favored by criminals
Fact: Only 8% of criminals use anything that is classified (even incorrectly) as an “assault weapon,”17 though less than 1% claimed to use these firearms when committing crimes.18
Fact: Criminals are as likely to carry single shot (derringer) handguns as they are to carry “assault weapons.”19
Fact: “Assault rifles have never been an issue in law enforcement. I have been on this job for 25 years and I haven’t seen a drug dealer carry one. They are not used in crimes, they are not used against police officers.”20
Fact: “Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that ‘assault weapons’ are/were used in an underwhelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. This means that my officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets.”21
Thoughts: “Assault weapons” are large and unwieldy. Even misclassified handguns tend to be bigger than practical for concealed carry. Criminals (who, incidentally, disregard concealed carry laws) are unlikely to carry “assault weapons.”
13 This claim was made by the anti-gun Violence Policy Center in their 2003 report titled Officer Down
14 The “study” included legal models of the SKS, Ruger Mini-14, and M1-Carbine, which were all in circulation before the federal “assault weapons” ban and which were excluded from the ban.
15 Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, FBI, 1994
16 Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation’s Law Enforcement Officers, U.S. Department of Justice, August 2006
17 Firearm Use by Offenders , Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2001
18 Ibid.
19 Ibid
20 Deputy Chief of Police Joseph Constance, Trenton NJ, testimony - Senate Judiciary Committee in Aug 1993
Copyright 2009, Guy Smith www.GunFacts.info All Rights Reserved

ASSAULT WEAPONS
“Assault weapon” is an invented term. In the firearm lexicon, there is no such thing as an “assault weapon.” The closest relative is the “assault rifle,” which is a machine gun or “select fire” rifle that fires rifle cartridges.1 In most cases, “assault weapons” are functionally identical to hunting rifles, though cosmetically similar to military guns.
Myth: Assault weapons are a serious problem in the U.S.
Fact: In 1994, before the Federal “assault weapons ban,” you were eleven (11) times more likely to be beaten to death than to be killed by an “assault weapon.”2 In the first year since the ban was lifted, murders declined 3.6%, and violent crime 1.7%.3
Fact: Nationally, “assault weapons” were used in 1.4% of crimes involving firearms and 0.25% of all violent crime before the enactment of any national or state “assault weapons” ban. In many major urban areas (San Antonio, Mobile, Nashville, etc.) and some entire states (Maryland, New Jersey, etc.) the rate is less than 0.1%.4
Fact: Even weapons misclassified as “assault weapons” (common in the former Federal and California “assault weapons” confiscations) are used in less than 1% of all homicides.5
Fact: Police reports show that “assault weapons” are a non-problem:
For California:
• Los Angeles: In 1998, of 538 documented gun incidents, only one (0.2%) involved an “assault weapon.”
• San Francisco: In 1998, only 2.2% of confiscated weapons were “assault weapons.”
• San Diego: Between 1988 and 1990, only 0.3% of confiscated weapons were “assault weapons.”
• “I surveyed the firearms used in violent crimes…assault-type firearms were the least of our worries.”6
1 Department of Defense Small Arms Identification and Operations Guide
2 FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1994
3 FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, Preliminary Summary, 2004
4 Targeting Guns, Gary Kleck, Aldine Transaction, 1997, compilation of 48 metropolitan police departments from 1980-1994
5 FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1993
6 S.C. Helsley, Assistant Director DOJ Investigation and Enforcement Branch, California, October 31, 1988 Gun Facts Version 5.1 Page 1
Copyright 2009, Guy Smith www.GunFacts.info All Rights Reserved
For the rest of the nation:
“No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished (by the ban). Assault weapons play a part in only a
• Between 1980 and 1994, only 2% of confiscated guns were “assault weapons.”7
small percentage
• Just under 2% of criminals that commit violent crimes used “assault weapons.” of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”
8
Fact: Only 1.4% of recovered crime weapons are models covered under the 1994 “assault weapons” ban.
Washington Post editorial
9
September 15, 1994
Fact: In Virginia, no surveyed inmates had carried an “assault weapon” during the commission of their last crime, despite 20% admitting that they had previously owned such weapons.10
Fact: Most “assault weapons” have no more firepower or killing capacity than the average hunting rifle and “play a small role in overall violent crime.”11
Fact: Even the government agrees. “… the weapons banned by this legislation [1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban - since repealed] were used only rarely in gun crimes”1

This is the United States of America! The land of the free and the home of the brave, although Washington D.C. appears to be the home of the naive.
When I was a kid some 40+ years ago, it was the "Red Scare" that had our guns at our bedside and the fear that overnight invasions from the communist that had our Right to Bear Arms held close to our bosom.
Though the Russian Bear is not dead, I guarantee you it is only resting. Our real fear is not from without but from within. The terms of the HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm
Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009 is vague on purpose and in purpose. Make no mistake, the purpose of our government is to disarm it's people through whatever means necessary.
First will come mandatory registration. That's so they know where to pick them up. They may offer a tax credit if you do so to make this a "safer" America. The safer America they speak of is not to protect you, but so they can enforce whatever bizarre laws that our twisted judicial system can dream up.
Second, there will be a surcharge levied against each gun owner as a tax for the privilege of owning a weapon. Currently, there is discussion of a $50 charge for each weapon you own.
Third will be the confiscations of weaponry which will come in waves. First will be assault weapons because they will say "they serve no purpose." (Except to repel our own out of control government.) Then will come pistols with magazines. Then sporting rifles that have an autoloader capacity. Their ultimate goal will be to leave us with revolvers and shotguns and to make us feel privileged that they have done so.
They've already begun to choke off the ammunition so tightly that the average man cannot go "plinking" at the local range anymore without taking out a loan at the local bank.
It's time to consider burying your cache of weaponry and ammo. Over the next few weeks I will cover in detail where and how to pick a place in your home or outside your home to bury such necessities. Pay attention, it will come in handy in the very, very near future.
Are you ready to listen or are you willing to become a ward of the state?
thegungurus.com

    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.