Defending the Truth

The first paragraph is spot on. Take a homeowner who has guns in the house, but he is not licensed to possess them. So someone burglarizes his home while the owner is there. The owner gets his gun and a gun battle ensues, with the owner killing the burglar.

Self defense, only that the homeowner is busted for only not being licensed to possess a weapon. Ticky tack right there.

More happy time gun facts :
* In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. This doesn't include the 30 million 'Uncle Joe' starved to death in the Ukraine. * In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, leaving a populace unable to defend itself against the Gestapo and SS. Hundreds of thousands died as a result. * China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. The total dead are said to be 2-3 million * Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, 1-2 million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million at a bare minimum. * Gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results: Australia-wide, homicides went up 3.2 percent Australia-wide, assaults went up 8.6 percent Australia-wide, armed robberies went up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent) 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. It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too. While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady DECREASE in armed robbery with firearms, that changed drastically upward in the first year after gun confiscation...since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. 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. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it. You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late. The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind him of this history lesson. With Guns...........We Are "Citizens". Without Them........We Are "Subjects". During W.W.II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED. Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor had attended Harvard University 1919-1921 & was Naval Attaché to the U. S. 1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor and our Army had been deprived of funding and was ill prepared to defend the country. It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U. S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U. S. and knew that almost all households had guns.

Toxic what about Iraq?

They have never had any form of gun control and most households own guns. Yet Saddam was able to oppress the entire country for 30+ years?

What about Chile under Pinochet - Chile has no gun controls.

How about Rwanda, or Zimbabwe under Mugabe?

How come your boys down at the NRA meet didn't put any of these examples in their handbook?

I can see that Toxic really missed you. I didn't know you had a "brother".

Here's another one of your "fun facts" - a 17 year old boy slaughtered outside of his own home, his mother, who is serving in Iraq, was flown home for his funeral:

Army mother comes home to tragedy
By Paloma Esquivel, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer, March 9, 2008

The soldier serving in Iraq worried about many things, but her son's being killed on the streets of L.A. wasn't one of them.

Army Sgt. Anita Shaw spent endless hours worrying about her teenage son while she served in Iraq.

She worried about his learning to drive without her, then maybe having a car accident. She worried about his not seeing a doctor if he needed to, or forgetting to go to the dentist. She worried about his having trouble in school.

But even in her darkest moments, she never worried about him being slain.

Her son, Jamiel Shaw Jr., 17, was killed last Sunday when two men in a car pulled up next to him, asked if he belonged to a gang, then shot him when he didn't answer. He was three houses from home in the Mid-City area of Los Angeles

Sign Up

Police said Jamiel was not affiliated with a gang. He was a high school football star who hoped to earn a college scholarship and become a sports agent, family members said.

Shaw learned of her son's death when her commander called her into his office to break the news.

I heard about that one. So sad.

How about this for a "fun fact" Toxic?




Guns trigger a loving clash
By David Haldane, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
March 10, 2008

DISPUTE: Julie Alban talks to her son, Joseph, in the kitchen of her parents’ Long Beach home. She was shot in the home by a man who had stolen a gun from her father, whom she sees as a ‘participant’ in her injury. He feels that he did nothing irresponsible


Shot and paralyzed 20 years ago, Julie Alban -- now with a baby -- wanted her dad's arms kept out of the house.

Julie Alban still grimaces when she passes her old bedroom.

"This is where I crawled down the hallway to call 911," she explains, pushing her wheelchair along the polished wooden floor. "I had to pull my whole body with my arms. My elbows were all bloody."

What happened that morning 20 years ago altered the course of her life and set the stage for most of what would come.

Though paralyzed from the waist down when shot by a boyfriend she had known since childhood, Alban went on to become a Long Beach prosecutor specializing in domestic abuse cases, a Republican candidate for Assembly, champion for the rights of disabled people and, most recently, mother of a 5-month-old boy. A frequent inspirational speaker, she also has become an ardent gun control proponent.

Sign Up

That seems to have shut up even Toxic, aka Davy Crockett

CNN — LOU DOBBS TONIGHT — Aired March 13, 2008 - 19:00 ET

LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: One of our basic freedoms is the right to keep and to bear arms. It is under fire tonight. An army reservist was convicted in federal court, I quote, "transferring a machine gun," end quote, after his 20-year-old AR-15 rifle malfunctioned on a shooting range.

That malfunction caused the rifle to fire multiple rounds with one pull of the trigger. Now the husband and father of three is a convicted felon and he's facing prison.

Bill Tucker has our report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): In July of 2006, David Olofson life dramatically changed. A raid under the command of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives was carried out on his home in Berlin, Wisconsin by the local police, the Sheriff's Department and the ATF.

DAVID OLOFSON, CONVICTED GUN OWNER: They used tools to — you know hydraulic tools to pry apart the door frames, kicked the door in. The S.W.A.T. team was fully armed with body armor.

TUCKER: Olofson's computers, gun manuals and gun collection were all seized. No illegal weapons were found. But Olofson was charged with a felony. Prior to this, Olofson had no criminal record. He's an army veteran, honorably discharged. He was, up until his arrest, serving in the Army Reserves. He's a husband and the father of three young children.

Olofson's problem began when he lent a rifle to a young man, Robert Corniki(ph), to be used on a local firing range.

(on-camera): Corniki brought the rifle here to the Berlin Conservation Gun Club. He fired at least 800 rounds on several different occasions before the two multiple burst rounds that the ATF said made the gun a machine gun.

(voice-over): This past January 8, Olofson was convicted on the charge of transferring a machine gun, a violation of federal law and he now awaits sentencing.

Federal law defines any gun which fires more than one bullet with one pull of a trigger as a machine gun. That conviction ended his military career and could land him in prison.

Nationally, gun owners are alarmed because the gun in question is not or has not been until now considered a machine gun. It is an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle. Olofson's was made by Olympic Arms SGW.

While no one keeps exact statistics on the gun, the National Rifle Association says tens of thousands of AR-15s are legally owned in the U.S. Gun owners are now wondering if their guns misfire, will they go to jail? And are their second amendment rights in jeopardy?

Olofson's defense lawyers are adding laws to explain the government's logic.

BRIAN FAHL, FEDERAL DEFENDER SVCS. OF WISC.: A lot of what the government was attempting to prove and their theory of the case, you know, just seemed to contradict common sense. You know, if something malfunctions, you get it fixed, don't charge or prosecute somebody as a felon.

TUCKER: But they did. And that's exactly why David Olofson found himself in federal court.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TUCKER: Now we can't tell you why the government brought its full weight to bear on a man living in a town of 5,500 people in the middle of Wisconsin. We asked for an explanation but the U.S. attorney in Milwaukee declined to comment because Olofson is awaiting sentencing.

Tomorrow, Lou, we'll take a look at some of the inconsistencies in the government's case against Olofson.

DOBBS: This is a remarkable story, a disturbing story. I don't think anyone — I got to say it straight up to ATF, I got the greatest respect for the work that all of you do. I am also a gun owner. I believe fervently, strongly, passionately in the second amendment, I think as most Americans do.

And to have a man — the full weight of the government come down on this man, to make it clear, as I read the transcript of the case, he loaned the weapon — on him like this, it — to make it really clear, as I read the transcript in this case, this man loaned this weapon, right, to a fellow who wanted to buy it perhaps. He goes to the firing range, he fires it, one, two — with one pull of the trigger, two rounds are fired.

TUCKER: Right.

DOBBS: The third jams and suddenly it's a big deal.

TUCKER: Yes.

DOBBS: I mean this is...

TUCKER: You've got it right. And what you're missing is he fired about 800 rounds or more before that round he shot —

DOBBS: It's semi automatic fire.

TUCKER: Semi automatic fire, before that gun jammed.

DOBBS: Unbelievable. And we can't get a straight story on this at all. And I would hope that the NRA, that the ATF, that the Justice Department, everybody, all of the folks, step in here and look at what you're doing because it doesn't make a sense.

There's nothing proportionate here. And this is an army veteran we're talking about. This is —

TUCKER: With 14 years of service, 16 years, excuse me, when you combine his reserves service with his regular army service, we're talking about a man with 16 years of military.

DOBBS: A man who deserves a lot better from his government.

We'll continue this report tomorrow and throughout. Bill Tucker, thank you.

The Supreme Court next Tuesday will hear oral arguments in a landmark second amendment case that could have national implications for gun ownership rights in this country. At issue the constitutionality of a Washington, D.C. law that bans handguns.

A federal appellate court last year ruled the ban unconstitutional. Now in a surprising move, the U.S. Justice Department is arguing that the case should be returned to the appellate court for further review, which could lead to restrictions on gun ownership. All thanks, of course, to the Bush White House but the Bush administration is at odds with its own Justice Department.

As a result, Vice President Dick Cheney signed a brief that opposes the Justice Department's decision. More than 300 members of Congress also signed that brief supporting the second amendment and gun ownership rights. Could this administration get more screwed up? We'll take up that question when we have far more time.

VIDEO

RADIO INTERVIEW

"What it means is that if the ATF can manipulate the court system and can prevent evidence that proves your innocence from being brought forth at your trial, I would say that's pretty significant wouldn't you?" — Len Savage


-