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.

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!

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.

    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?

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.