Second Amendment–Gun Control–The Joyce Foundation–Obama–Death By Gun Control and Political Correctness–Ft. Hood’s 9/11

Posted on November 8, 2009. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Crime, government spending, Law, liberty, Life, Links, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.”

~George Washington


Glenn Beck Show – Nov 9, 2009 – Pt 6 of 6 – Michelle Malkin


Army Knew Ft. Hood Shooter Tried To Contact Al-Qaeda 

This Week with George Stephanopoulos / Gen. George Casey: Ft. Hood Tragedy


Political Correctness – A God That Failed?

Jumping to Conclusions: Fort Hood vs Cambridge Police

Penn & Teller on the 2nd Amendment

 Gun Rights on Trial: Brian Doherty Reacts to D.C. v. Heller

Obama’s Nuance on Gun Control


Myth: Gun Control Reduces Crime

Gun Control is a Myth UK

Obama Will Ban Firearms, Ammo, Gun Shows, Gun Stores, Concealed Carry, shooting, 4x4s, etc.

John Lott: More Guns, Less Crime book interview on CSPAN

Jackie Mason Video Blog on “Gun Control”

NRA: The Untold Story of Gun Confiscation After Katrina

The History of Gun Control – Innocence Lost Part 1 of 6

The History of Gun Control – Innocence Lost Part 2 of 6

The History of Gun Control – Innocence Lost Part 3 of 6

The History of Gun Control – Innocence Lost Part 4 of 6

The History of Gun Control – Innocence Lost Part 5 of 6

The History of Gun Control – Innocence Lost Part 6 of 6

Gun Rights Under Obama – Brian Doherty

Alan Keyes on the Second Amendment and gun rights

Stephen Halbrook with CNN’s Lou Dobbs on Gun Control

Penn and Teller – Gun Control and Columbine


The CIA Predict The Next American Revolution Rebellion by 2014

Archie Bunker on Gun Control

“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

~Thomas Jefferson


What do President Obama and Major Nidal Malik Hasan have in common.

Both were deeply influenced by their religious clergy.

For President Obama it was Reverand Jeremiah Wright:

For Major Nidal Malik Hasan it was his Islamic imam Anwar al-Awlaki:

Fort Hood Suspect’s Ties to Terrorists


Allah is preparing us for VICTORY! Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki

It’s a War Against Islam by Anwar Al-Awlaki 1/2

It’s a War Against Islam by Anwar Al-Awlaki 2/2

Exclusive: Moazzam Begg Interviews Imam Anwar al-Awlaki

Yes, one should not jump to conclusions.

Nor, should one deny substantial evidence that leads one to the correct conclusion.

Both political correctness and gun control resulted in the deaths at Fort Hood.

The progressive radical socialist Democratic Party lead by President Obama are the leading advocates of both political correctness and gun control.

The deaths and injuries at Fort Hood, Texas can be traced to gun control, political correctness and the ideas preached by religious leaders.

Ideas have consequences including very bad ideas.

Any politician who supports gun control deserves to be defeated, you life may depend upon it.

Background Articles and Videos



BULLSH#T! On Gun Laws Part 1

BULLSH#T! On Gun Laws Part 2

BULLSH#T! On Gun Laws Part 3

Will the FBI Properly Investigate the Fort Hood shooter’s Alleged al Qaeda Ties?

“…Substantive red flags have surfaced in the ongoing investigation of Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan. This includes details that go well beyond his radical Islamist and anti-American beliefs. The most disturbing threads of evidence link Hasan to a prominent al Qaeda recruiter named Anwar al Awlaki (sometimes spelled Aulaqi).

The FBI dropped the ball when investigating Awlaki at least twice in the past. So one must ask: Will the FBI and other U.S. authorities properly investigate Awlaki, including his purported ties to Hasan, this time?

According to press reports, Nidal Malik Hasan attended the Dar al Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, VA in 2001 and held his mother’s funeral there on May 31, 2001. Two of the 9/11 hijackers also visited the same mosque and received assistance from its members during this period. Awlaki was an imam at the mosque at this time.

Awlaki is a known al Qaeda recruiter and spiritual guide. His sermons have inspired terrorists around the globe. Some might dismiss Hasan’s visits to Dar al Hijrah at the same time Awlaki was preaching there as mere coincidence. But there are troubling signs that it cannot be dismissed so easily.

Early this morning, Awlaki posted a blog entry titled “Nidal Hassan Did the Right Thing” on his web site. In the post, Awlaki calls Hasan a “hero.” Awlaki writes:

[Hasan] is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people. This is a contradiction that many Muslims brush aside and just pretend that it doesn’t exist. Any decent Muslim cannot live, understanding properly his duties towards his Creator and his fellow Muslims, and yet serve as a US soldier. The US is leading the war against terrorism which in reality is a war against Islam. Its army is directly invading two Muslim countries and indirectly occupying the rest through its stooges.
Nidal opened fire on soldiers who were on their way to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what he has done? In fact the only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the US army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal.

This is disturbing to say the least. Awlaki is calling on other Muslim servicemen to follow Hasan’s lead. It also raises the possibility that Hasan had deeper ties to al Qaeda’s international terrorist network than have been previously reported. In fact, ABC News reported a bombshell this morning: …”

Fort Hood’s 9/11


“…On Thursday afternoon, a radicalized Muslim US Army officer shouting “Allahu Akbar!” committed the worst act of terror on American soil since 9/11. And no one wants to call it an act of terror or associate it with Islam.

What cowards we are. Political correctness killed those patriotic Americans at Ft. Hood as surely as the Islamist gunman did. And the media treat it like a case of non-denominational shoplifting.

This was a terrorist act. When an extremist plans and executes a murderous plot against our unarmed soldiers to protest our efforts to counter Islamist fanatics, it’s an act of terror. Period.

When the terrorist posts anti-American hate-speech on the Web; apparently praises suicide bombers and uses his own name; loudly criticizes US policies; argues (as a psychiatrist, no less) with his military patients over the worth of their sacrifices; refuses, in the name of Islam, to be photographed with female colleagues; lists his nationality as “Palestinian” in a Muslim spouse-matching program, and parades around central Texas in a fundamentalist playsuit — well, it only seems fair to call this terrorist an “Islamist terrorist.”

But the president won’t. Despite his promise to get to all the facts. Because there’s no such thing as “Islamist terrorism” in ObamaWorld. …”

Political Correctness

“…Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term denoting language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social offense in gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, handicap, and age-related contexts. In current usage, the terms are almost exclusively pejorative, connoting “intolerant” and “intolerance” [1][2] whilst the usage politically incorrect, denotes an implicitly positive self-description. Examples include the conservative Politically Incorrect Guides published by the Regnery editorial house, [3] and the television talk show Politically Incorrect. Thus, “politically incorrect” denotes language, ideas, and behavior, unconstrained by orthodoxy and the fear of giving offense. …”

“…In Marxism–Leninism

In Marxist–Leninist and Trotskyist vocabulary, correct was the common term denoting the “appropriate party line” and the ideologic/ “correct line”.[6] Likewise in the People’s Republic of China, as part of Mao’s declarations on the correct handling of “non-antagonistic contradictions”.[1][7][8][9] The Liberian stateswoman Ruth Perry traces the term from Mao Zedong’s Little Red Book (1964).

In left-wing rhetoric

Even before the term PC appeared, the Left mocked its own language usage in the pamphlet Lifeitselfmanship or How to Become a Precisely-Because Man (1956), by Jessica Mitford, about “L and non-L” (Left and non-Left) English, mocking the Communist clichés used by her comrades when talking about fighting the class struggle. The pamphlet’s title refers to the Stephen Potter book series including the title Lifemanship, and replies to Noblesse Oblige, by Nancy Mitford, about the perceptible class distinctions in British English usage, that popularised the phrases “U and non-U English” (Upper class and non-Upper class).[10][11]

In the 1960s, the radical Left adopted the term, initially seriously, then ironically, in self-criticism of dogmatic attitudes. In the 1990s, because of the term’s association with radical left-wing politics and Communist censorship, the US Right applied it to discredit the Old Left and the New Left.[1] By 1970, New Left proponents had adopted the term political correctness.[1] In the essay The Black Woman, Toni Cade Bambara says: “. . . a man cannot be politically correct and a [male] chauvinist too” — a usage that widened the definition’s scope to include the politics of gender and identity to the politics of ideological orthodoxy in governing. The New Left thus re-appropriated the term political correctness as satirical self-criticism; per Debra Shultz: “Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the New Left, feminists, and progressives . . . used their term politically correct ironically, as a guard against their own orthodoxy in social change efforts”.[1][2][12] Hence, it is a popular English usage in the underground comic book Merton of the Movement, by Bobby London, while ideologically sound an alternative term, followed a like lexical path, appearing in Bart Dickon’s satirical comic strips.[1][13] Moreover, Ellen Willis says: “ . . . in the early ’80s, when feminists used the term political correctness, it was used to refer sarcastically to the anti-pornography movement’s efforts to define a ‘feminist sexuality’ ”.[14]

Current usage

Widespread use of the term “politically correct” and its derivatives began when it was adopted as a pejorative term by the political right in the 1990s, in the context of the Culture Wars. Writing in the New York Times in 1990,[15] Richard Bernstein noted “The term “politically correct,” with its suggestion of Stalinist orthodoxy, is spoken more with irony and disapproval than with reverence. But across the country the term p.c., as it is commonly abbreviated, is being heard more and more in debates over what should be taught at the universities.” Bernstein referred to a meeting of the Western Humanities Conference in Berkeley, California, on ” ‘Political Correctness’ and Cultural Studies,” which examined “what effect the pressure to conform to currently fashionable ideas is having on scholarship”. Bernstein also referred to “p.c.p” for “politically correct people”, a term which did not take root in popular discussion.

Within a few years, this previously obscure term featured regularly in the lexicon of the conservative social and political challenges against curriculum expansion and progressive teaching methods in US high schools and universities.[16] In 1991, addressing a graduating class of the University of Michigan, U.S. President George H. W. Bush spoke against “ . . . a movement [that would] declare certain topics ‘off-limits’, certain expressions ‘off-limits’, even certain gestures ‘off-limits’ ” in allusion to liberal Political Correctness.[17] The most common usage here is as a pejorative term to refer to excessive deference to particular sensibilities at the expense of other considerations. The converse term “politically incorrect” came into use as an implicit term of self-praise, indicating that the user was not afraid to give offense.

The central uses of the term relate to issues of race and gender, and encompass both the language in which issues are discussed and the viewpoints that are expressed. Proponents of the view that black people are less intelligent, on average, than white people, or that women are less intelligent than men, state that criticism of these views is based on political correctness.[18]

Fort Hood shooting: Texas army killer linked to September 11 terrorists

By Philip Sherwell and Alex Spillius

“…Hasan, the sole suspect in the massacre of 13 fellow US soldiers in Texas, attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. His mother’s funeral was held there in May that year.

The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organisations. 

Hasan’s eyes “lit up” when he mentioned his deep respect for al-Awlaki’s teachings, according to a fellow Muslim officer at the Fort Hood base in Texas, the scene of Thursday’s horrific shooting spree.

As investigators look at Hasan’s motives and mindset, his attendance at the mosque could be an important piece of the jigsaw. Al-Awlaki moved to Dar al-Hijrah as imam in January, 2001, from the west coast, and three months later the September 11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hamzi and Hani Hanjour began attending his services. A third hijacker attended his services in California.

Hasan was praying at Dar al-Hijrah at about the same time, and the FBI will now want to investigate whether he met the two terrorists.

Charles Allen, a former under-secretary for intelligence at the Department of Homeland Security, has described al-Awlaki, who now lives in Yemen, as an “al-Qaeda supporter, and former spiritual leader to three of the September 11 hijackers… who targets US Muslims with radical online lectures encouraging terrorist attacks from his new home in Yemen”.

Anwar al-Awlaki

“…Anwar al-Awlaki (also spelled Aulaqi) is a Muslim author and public figure, originally trained as a Civil Engineer and is associated with Iman University, Yemen

His parents are from Yemen, where he lived for eleven years and received the early part of his Islamic education. Awlaki has served as an Imam in Colorado, California, and most recently in the Washington, D.C. area where he headed the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Centre and was also the Muslim Chaplain at George Washington University[1]. He began serving formally as the imam of the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in January 2001; it was shortly after this that his sermons were attended by three of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers and Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan.[2]

He holds a B.S. in Civil Engineering from Colorado State University, an M.A. in Education Leadership from San Diego State University and was working on a Doctorate degree in Human Resource Development at George Washington University.

On 31 August 2006, Awlaki was detained for questioning by the Yemeni authorities due to what he claimed was a “secret police investigation” over “tribal issues.” On 12 December 2007, Awlaki was released by the Yemeni authorities and was reunited with his family.

23 August 2009, Awlaki was banned by local authorities in Kensington and Chelsea, London, from speaking via videolink to a fundraiser for Guantanamo detainees.[3]

Anwar al-Awlaki currently resides in Yemen, and is associated with Iman University.

Al-Awlaki has been accused by numerous official and unofficial sources with charges of Islamic fundamentalism and support for terrorism. He is often noted for targeting young U.S.-based Muslims with his lectures. The East London Mosque provoked outrage within the United Kingdom after hosting a video-teleconference by al-Awlaki, with former Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve expressing concern over al-Awlaki’s involvement.[4]

Al-Awlaki’s “44 Ways to Support Jihad”[5] has been seen as a pro Al-Qaeda document that incites English speaking Muslims.[6]

Connections to 9/11

9/11 hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi began attending the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in April 2001, three months after al-Awlaki began working as the mosque’s imam.[7] Former under-secretary of intelligence at the Department of Homeland Security, Charles E. Allen, has said that al-Awlaki is an “al-Qaeda supporter, and former spiritual leader to three of the September 11 hijackers… who targets US Muslims with radical online lectures encouraging terrorist attacks from his new home in Yemen.”[8]

9/11 hijackers Khalid al Midhar and Nawaf al Hazmi came into contact with al Awlaki at the Rabat mosque in San Diego, though The 9/11 Commission Report notes that “We do not know how or when Hazmi and Midhar first met” him. According to The 9/11 Commission Report, the two “may even have met or at least talked to him the same day they first moved to San Diego.” Al Midhar and al Hazmi “reportedly respected al Awlaki as a religious figure and developed a close relationship with him.” The Congressional Joint Inquiry on 9/11 labels al Awlaki “their spiritual advisor” and asserts that there were reports of “closed-door meetings” involving the three. In January 2001, al Awlaki moved to Virginia and became the imam at the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, VA, a mosque with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. In April 2001, al Hamzi and fellow hijacker Hani Hanjour showed up at Dar al Hijrah. The 9/11 Commission Report asserts that al Hazmi’s “appearance may not have been coincidental. We have unable to learn enough about al Awlaki’s relationship with Hazmi and Midhar to reach a conclusion.”

Connection to Nidal Malik Hasan

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who committed the 2009 Fort Hood shooting that killed 13 of his fellow US Army soldiers, including a pregnant female soldier, was influenced by the lectures of Anwar al-Awlaki, and believed that Islam and the United States of America were enemies, according to muslim friends who knew him. Hasan attended at least one lecture by Awlaki. [9] According to a fellow Muslim officer, Hasan’s eyes “lit up” when he spoke of his “deep respect for al-Awlaki’s teachings.[10]

According to the Associated Press in a story dated November 8, 2009, the family of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist who killed 13 and wounded 29 at the Texas military base, held his mother’s funeral at the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Va., on May 31, 2001, according to her obituary in the Roanoke Times newspaper. At the time, Anwar al-Awalki was an imam, or spiritual leader, at the Washington-area mosque. Awlaki told the FBI in 2001 that, before he moved to Virginia in early 2001, he met with 9/11 hijacker Nawaf al-Hazmi several times in San Diego. Al-Hazmi was at the time living with Khalid al-Mihdhar, another hijacker. Al-Hazmi and another hijacker, Hani Hanjour, attended the Dar al Hijrah mosque in Virginia in early April 2001. …”


“…Democide is a term coined by political scientist R. J. Rummel for “the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder.” Rummel created the term as an extended concept to include forms of government murder that are not covered by the legal definition of genocide, and it has found currency among other scholars.[1][2][3]

According to Rummel, genocide has three different meanings. The ordinary meaning is murder by government of people due to their national, ethnic, racial, or religious group membership. The legal meaning of genocide refers to the international treaty, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This also includes nonlethal acts that in the end eliminate the group, such as preventing births or forcibly transferring children out of the group to another group. A generalized meaning of genocide is similar to the ordinary meaning but also includes government killings of political opponents or otherwise intentional murder. In order to avoid confusion over which meaning is intended, Rummel created the term democide for the third meaning.[4]

Rummel defines democide as “The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder”. For example, government-sponsored killings for political reasons would be considered democide. Democide can also include deaths arising from “intentionally or knowingly reckless and depraved disregard for life”; this brings into account many deaths arising through various neglects and abuses, such as forced mass starvation. Rummel explicitly excludes battle deaths in his definition. Capital punishment, actions taken against armed civilians during mob action or riot, and the deaths of noncombatants killed during attacks on military targets so long as the primary target is military, are not considered democide.[5]

He has further stated: “I use the civil definition of murder, where someone can be guilty of murder if they are responsible in a reckless and wanton way for the loss of life, as in incarcerating people in camps where they may soon die of malnutrition, unattended disease, and forced labor, or deporting them into wastelands where they may die rapidly from exposure and disease.”

Some examples of democide cited by Rummel include the Great Purges carried out by Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union (despite those people were executed), the deaths from the colonial policy in the Congo Free State, and Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward resulting in a famine which killed millions of people. According to Rummel, these were not cases of genocide, because those who were killed were not selected on the basis of their race, but were killed in large numbers as a result of government policies. Famine is classified by Rummel as democide if it fits the definition above.

For instance, Rummel only recently classified Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward as democide. He believed that Mao’s policies were largely responsible for the famine, but he was misled about it, and finally when he found out, he stopped it and changed his policies. Thus, according to Rummel, is not an intentional famine and thus not a democide. However, contradictory claims from Jung Chang and John Halliday’s controversial Mao: the Unknown Story allege that Mao knew about the famine from the beginning but didn’t care, and eventually Mao had to be stopped by a meeting of 7,000 top Communist Party members. Based on the book’s claims, Rummel now views the famine as intentional and a democide.[citation needed]


Obama linked to gun control efforts
By: Kenneth P. Vogel

“…Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has worked to assure uneasy gun owners that he believes the Constitution protects their rights and that he doesn’t want to take away their guns.

But before he became a national political figure, he sat on the board of a Chicago-based foundation that doled out at least nine grants totaling nearly $2.7 million to groups that advocated the opposite positions.

The foundation funded legal scholarship advancing the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect individual gun owners’ rights, as well as two groups that advocated handgun bans. And it paid to support a book called “Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.”

Obama’s eight years on the board of the Joyce Foundation, which paid him more than $70,000 in directors fees, do not in any way conflict with his campaign-trail support for the rights of gun owners, Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for Obama’s presidential campaign, asserted in a statement issued to Politico this week. …”

“…Of the $219 million in grants approved from 1997 through 2002 — the years of Obama’s tenure for which the foundation has posted its annual reports online — the environment received $57 million, followed by education ($56 million), employment ($41 million), gun violence ($21 million), money and politics ($17 million) and culture ($6.5 million).”

The Joyce Foundation


The Joyce Foundation

“…The Joyce Foundation is a charitable foundation based in Chicago in the United States and operating principally in the Great Lakes region.

The Foundation primarily funds organizations in the Great Lakes region (specifically the states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin).


  • Education: Focuses on public schools in Chicago, Cleveland, and Milwaukee; concentrates on teacher quality, early childhood education, and “innovations,” primarily charter schools, small schools, and similar initiatives.
  • Employment: Focuses on workforce development, education, and job training for low-income workers.
  • Environment: Concentrates on environmental issues affecting the Great Lakes region, especially water and energy issues.
  • Gun violence: Funds research and advocacy to reduce gun ownership, deaths and injuries. This includes support of anti-gun groups[1].
  • Money and politics: Supports research and advocacy around such issues as campaign finance and ethics reform.
  • Culture: Supports arts organizations, primarily in Chicago; its Joyce Awards also supports arts groups in other Midwest cities.  …”

“…Gun violence prevention and gun control

Since 2003, the Joyce Foundation has paid grants totaling over $12 million to gun control organizations[10][1]. The largest single grantee has been the Violence Policy Center, which received $4,154,970[10] between 1996 and 2006, and calls for an outright ban on handguns, semi-automatic and other firearms, and substantial restrictions on gun owners.[13] The Joyce Foundation’s position on gun control has led to frequent opposition and criticism from gun rights groups, particularly the National Rifle Association, which calls the Joyce Foundation an activist foundation whose “shadowy web of huge donations” leads “straight to puppet strings that control the agenda of gun ban groups”.[14]

Funding patterns

Joyce Foundation funding[10] in several areas related to gun control is available in the form of a mind map. Click on the picture to view it in full size.

The Joyce Foundation funds policy-related research in its program areas.

In 2005, the Joyce Foundation paid grants in the amount of $8,385,304 in its Environment program, $7,888,380 in its Education program, $6,302,775 in its Employment program, $3,056,117 in its Gun Violence Program, $2,818,105 in its Money and Politics program, and $1,427,350 in its Culture program. Source: The Joyce Foundation 2005 Annual Report, Page 45

The Joyce Foundation

Fort Hood: Death by gun control

“…Yesterday at Fort Hood, disgruntled Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan murdered 12 soldiers and wounded 31 others before being shot and captured.

These soldiers were entrusted to carry fully automatic, military assault rifles when deployed to Afghanistan, where the shooter was about to be sent. But in America, these same soldiers are disarmed when on base. From the Associated Press:
Soldiers at Fort Hood don’t carry weapons unless they are doing training exercises. …”

“…Old media attempted to associate this mass murder with the one that happened to civilians in 1991:

The base is surrounded by the town of Killeen, where a man shot and killed 23 people in a Luby’s restaurant in October 1991.
“Unfortunately, this is a day we had dreaded,” said Hilary Shine, a spokeswoman for the city of Killeen. “Every time you hear of a mass casualty situation in Killeen, you think of Luby’s. …
They inadvertently prove that civilian disarmament zones provide the perfect place for mass murderers: Luby’s patrons were disarmed due to Texas’s gun control laws. …”

Suzanna Gratia Hupp explains meaning of 2nd Amendment!

Obama on Gun Control

Obama infringes the constitution

Harold Koh, another anti-gun Obama nominee

Anwar al-Awlaki – Understanding The Quran

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Is That How You Talk To Your Mother? Emanuel and Obama Want To Repeal The Second Amendment And Take American People’s Guns Used To Defend Their Homes and Family? The Flying Fickle Finger of Fate Award Goes To Emanuel and Obama! 

Lock and Load: The Radical Socialists–Are Going After Your Guns!–Update–Holder Wants Assault Weapons Ban Permanent!

Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: