Huckabee jokes at NRA conference about someone trying to shoot Obama; Update: Painfully awkward video added; Update: Huckabee apologizes

posted at 3:59 pm on May 16, 2008 by Allahpundit

Stupid, and doubtless to receive plenty of attention since it’s useful to so many groups. The left will use it as a Larger Truth about the NRA; the media will use it to find some racial subtext that isn’t actually there; and righteous conservative bloggers will use it to gently suggest that perhaps Huck isn’t VP material.

Way to help gun owners shed those stereotypes of being reckless and/or deranged, though.

During a speech before the National Rifle Association convention Friday afternoon in Louisville, Kentucky, former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee — who has endorsed presumptive GOP nominee John McCain — joked that an unexpected offstage noise was Democrat Barack Obama looking to avoid a gunman.

“That was Barack Obama, he just tripped off a chair, he’s getting ready to speak,” said the former Arkansas governor, to audience laughter. “Somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor.”

Melodramatic exit question from the comments to the CNN post: “Is this a man of God?”

Update: Headlines comments imported.

Update: Well, this makes things nice and easy for Russert, at least.

Update: It comes at around the halfway point. The silence is excruciating. Click the image to watch.

huck-nra.jpg

Update: Huck makes amends:

“I made an off hand remark that was in no way intended to offend or disparage Sen. Obama,” the statement said. “I apologize that my comments were offensive. That was never my intention.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

austinnelly on May 16, 2008 at 11:46 PM

You owe me a new keyboard, monitor, pair of underwear, and a cat.

RushBaby on May 17, 2008 at 12:25 AM

Schmuck.

Tzetzes on May 17, 2008 at 12:53 AM

I have a question – I support the 2nd Amendment, but why is it neccessary to shoot a deer or use an assault weapon for hunting squirrel or ducks or rabbits or whatever?

“Assault weapons” are aren’t often used for hunting. Mostly for varmints or I know some people use SKS for wild pigs, but I don’t really consider an SKS an “assault weapon”. If you’re wondering why I’m throwing sneer quotes when referencing “assault weapons”, its because its a term devised by the anti-Second fascists to scare people.

I mean – why is a MS-13 gang style weapon a neccessary weapon in hunting? What’s the statement?

AprilOrit on May 16, 2008 at 10:11 PM

What the hell is an MS-13 style gang weapon? That is a rhetorical question, there is no such thing as a “gang weapon”. Please, please, PLEASE stop getting your information about firearms from Hollywood and the MSM, you’re embarrassing all involved, downright dangerous to our constitutional rights at worst.

Most gangbangers use cheap or stolen easily concealable compact handguns in a low caliber, none of which fell under the first AWB, and won’t fall under any other unless we fall under the control of a authoritarian police state. If they use a long gun, it’ll usually be a regular 12 gauge pump shotgun, which can be had cheap, and also won’t be subject to any bans either, because the left has to keep up their “oh, we support hunting!” charade.

Gang members rarely use “assault weapons” in their crimes, news reports love to show film clips of gangbangers flashing gang signs and waving AKs or Tec-9s around because it scares people into thinking gangbangers are just running around and hosing down the inner cities with Tec-9s and AKs, like its Grand Theft Auto or or some Hollywood crime movie. Its part sensationalism, part anti-Second propaganda on the media’s part.

The reason the media and left (yes, I’m being redundant) are so focused on scaring you and others into fearing “assault weapons” and trying to make you support bans on them is because they need a subdued, pliable, disarmed populace to fully enact their policies.

Gun ownership is starting to pick up with younger people, and the left sees the window for destroying American gun culture closing, hunting gun culture is dying, but a new gun culture is rapidly growing around modern pistols and “assault weapons”. The goal of the anti-Second fascists is to smother this new gun culture in the cradle.

doubleplusundead on May 17, 2008 at 1:26 AM

I KNEW it was just a matter of time before the schmuck put his foot in his mouth…again.

Huck sucks. Huck suuuuuuuuuuuuucks.

Roger Waters on May 17, 2008 at 1:41 AM

We’re just enjoying Friday afternoon with a fun non issue that will bite Huck in the butt. It usually takes a contortionist to be able to accomplish that on his own.

maverick muse on May 16, 2008 at 4:46 PM

He did more than just bite himself on the butt.

He actually put his foot in his mouth.

Quite a feat when you consider that his head is usually up his ass.

soundingboard on May 17, 2008 at 1:47 AM

What the hell is an MS-13 style gang weapon?

doubleplusundead on May 17, 2008 at 1:26 AM

It’s all tattooed and has lines shaved on it’s sights.

- The Cat

P.S. Now if it pierces it’s trigger, well that’s just punk.

MirCat on May 17, 2008 at 1:58 AM

have a question for you. If…I say IF your were to go big game hunting which rifle would you take. One that fires a civilian .308 cartridge or one that too a 7.62 NATO round?

Oldnuke on May 16, 2008 at 10:20 PM

This question wasn’t directed at me but depending on the game could i choose something larger?, especially if we are going to be hunting outside of North America? >:D

Chakra Hammer on May 17, 2008 at 2:20 AM

This hunting argument is a Red Herring.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. – Thomas Jefferson

- The Cat

P.S. What we have in our homes and how powerful they are is one of the major reasons that Soviet generals were affraid to invade. They seriously didn’t fear our military as much as Kentucky Grandmas sniping them.

MirCat on May 17, 2008 at 2:38 AM

austinnelly on May 16, 2008 at 11:46 PM

You know, I’ve never thought about stealing something and posting it as my own before…

baldilocks on May 17, 2008 at 2:39 AM

MirCat on May 17, 2008 at 2:38 AM

yeah kinda reminds me of this quote too…

“You cannot invade the mainland United States.
There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”

- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

Tacitus on May 17, 2008 at 3:13 AM

You know, I’ve never thought about stealing something and posting it as my own before…

baldilocks on May 17, 2008 at 2:39 AM

With that kind of thinking, you’ll never write for the NYT. :)

- The Cat

P.S.

Tacitus on May 17, 2008 at 3:13 AM

I must remember that one.

MirCat on May 17, 2008 at 3:59 AM

an assault weapon

AprilOrit on May 16, 2008 at 10:11 PM

Define “assault weapon”. No, I mean without wikipedia or google. Show me you knew exactly what that term meant when you used it.

MadisonConservative on May 17, 2008 at 4:02 AM

Define “assault weapon”.

An assault weapon is generally considered to be a firearm that is semi-automatic (ie, not a bolt action) that can carry a magazine (ie clip, bandolier, etc.,) containing an arbitrarily large number of rounds (bullets). Also, the ability to effectively conceal said firearm has an impact. Assuming you make a ten round magazine the line where it goes from “handgun” to “assault weapon,” a Colt M1911 .45 calibre ACP not an assault weapon (7 round mag plus one in the chute), but makes a Baretta M9 9mm an assault weapon (15 round mag). Meanwhile, most modern carbines, sub-machine guns, semi-automatic rifles, etc., would be considered assault weapons.

The main reason they’re called “assault weapons” is because someone somewhere decided that more than X number of rounds in a weapon can only be used as an offensive weapon (ie, to assault something.) Whoever came up with that farce has probably never fired a weapon, and has almost certainly never fired a weapon in a high-stress situation. Thus he does not know that you often have no idea how many times you have squeezed the trigger, and that without extensive training, it can be very difficult to hit a target 10 feet away reliably on the first try in a high stress situation. To that end, even an individual who purchases a weapon exclusively for home defense ought to be allowed more rounds, if only to scare the crap out of someone attempting to break into his house.
However, for home defense I think that someone should just suck up the recoil and buy a .45 ACP. The round’s muzzle velocity is low enough to decrease likelihood of the projectile going through walls.

Spc Steve on May 17, 2008 at 4:51 AM

Huck just lost the VP

EricPWJohnson on May 17, 2008 at 6:25 AM

Huck just lost the VP

Yeah he did. He was pandering a little too hard. He thought he was talking too a bunch of gun-nuts and they would appreciate some assassinate-Obama humor. The NRA members are a little bit smarter and classier than he estimated.

It reminds me of the time that Huck was making fun of Romney for removing the skin from his fried chicken, and then had his picture taken of himself eating the skin. And, just going on and on about how he knows how to eat fried chicken. People just aren’t as stupid as he thinks they are.

“Don’t Mormons believe Obama and Satan are brothers”?

joncoltonis on May 17, 2008 at 6:50 AM

Maybe his words will finish himself off, that Huckster.

AMartinez on May 17, 2008 at 7:06 AM

Oh sure. He apologizes to them.

Tanya on May 17, 2008 at 7:38 AM

Good grief, won’t this guy go away?

VP he is not.

By the way, anyone seen Hillary lately?

Et tu Brute on May 17, 2008 at 7:47 AM

This question wasn’t directed at me but depending on the game could i choose something larger?, especially if we are going to be hunting outside of North America? >:D
Chakra Hammer on May 17, 2008 at 2:20 AM

Sure could! How about a .600 Nitro Express? Course you couldn’t get that in an assault weapon, you’d have to settle for a pansy civilian model that only fired a single round or at best a double barrel. :-)

Oldnuke on May 17, 2008 at 8:07 AM

Would like to hear or see the audio of how the NRA crowd in attendence reacted………heard a blurb on radio that it was dead silence, bit of a murmer …..

Would be a good followup for Russert to play

sbark on May 17, 2008 at 8:17 AM

However, for home defense I think that someone should just suck up the recoil and buy a .45 ACP. The round’s muzzle velocity is low enough to decrease likelihood of the projectile going through walls.
Spc Steve on May 17, 2008 at 4:51 AM

Well, not so much. Been a while since I gave up reloading but you can get in the neighborhood of:

185gr JHP .45 ACP 1100fps
115gr FMJ 9mm Luger 1150fps
125gr JHP .357 Mag 1500fps

Of course that .45 load is pretty (really!) hot but you can get that velocity and I think it would go through most home walls. I’d suggest frangible ammunition or a shotgun. I’ve always found the recoil of a .45 much less objectionable than a 9mm .

Oldnuke on May 17, 2008 at 8:25 AM

Oldnuke on May 17, 2008 at 8:25 AM

Eh…..matter of physical ability too. The .45 was our service sidearm when I was in the Army. No matter how hard I tried I couldn’t control it. Every shot I had to readjust my grip. Creative scoring kept me in the qualified catagory.
The Baretta 9 fits my hand perfectly and I do pretty well with it.

Limerick on May 17, 2008 at 9:46 AM

I blame the bro of christ.

ninjapirate on May 16, 2008 at 4:28 PM

Everybody sing!

Sekhmet on May 17, 2008 at 10:43 AM

In terms of Huck’s vice-presidential hopes and gun usage, the Obama line was his R. Bud Dwyer moment.

jon1979 on May 17, 2008 at 10:56 AM

An assault weapon is generally considered to be a firearm that is semi-automatic (ie, not a bolt action) that can carry a magazine (ie clip, bandolier, etc.,) containing an arbitrarily large number of rounds (bullets). Also, the ability to effectively conceal said firearm has an impact. Assuming you make a ten round magazine the line where it goes from “handgun” to “assault weapon,” a Colt M1911 .45 calibre ACP not an assault weapon (7 round mag plus one in the chute), but makes a Baretta M9 9mm an assault weapon (15 round mag). Meanwhile, most modern carbines, sub-machine guns, semi-automatic rifles, etc., would be considered assault weapons.

The main reason they’re called “assault weapons” is because someone somewhere decided that more than X number of rounds in a weapon can only be used as an offensive weapon (ie, to assault something.) Whoever came up with that farce has probably never fired a weapon, and has almost certainly never fired a weapon in a high-stress situation. Thus he does not know that you often have no idea how many times you have squeezed the trigger, and that without extensive training, it can be very difficult to hit a target 10 feet away reliably on the first try in a high stress situation. To that end, even an individual who purchases a weapon exclusively for home defense ought to be allowed more rounds, if only to scare the crap out of someone attempting to break into his house.
However, for home defense I think that someone should just suck up the recoil and buy a .45 ACP. The round’s muzzle velocity is low enough to decrease likelihood of the projectile going through walls.

Spc Steve on May 17, 2008 at 4:51 AM

Um…which definition are we going by here? Because if we’re talking about according to the AWB, that’s completely wrong.

Under the AWB first of all, semi-auto weapons are only assault weapons if they were developed from originally full-auto models, such as a semi-auto AR-15 or a semi-auto MP5. A rifle that was originally created as semi-auto would not be considered an assault weapon.

The other qualifications, depending whether it is a rifle, shotgun, or pistol, include a telescoping or folding stock, a barrel shroud, a flash suppressor, a pistol grip, a bayonet clip, or a grenade launcher. I think it also includes weapons where the clip is attachable from the side or top.

In other words, the majority of qualifications for an “assault weapon” are ludicrous, and the reference to them as some sort of superweapon while hunting is ridiculous. Woo, this semi-auto Colt M4 just ripped that deer in half like a recoilless rifle! WOOHOO! Thank god I have this bayonet clip to back me up just in case!

In other words, the fact that AprilOrit was using the term in that context was proof that she had no idea what it meant. I just wanted to see whether she’d admit that, or how closely she’d copy and paste from another website after she looked it up.

MadisonConservative on May 17, 2008 at 11:53 AM

In other words, the fact that AprilOrit was using the term in that context was proof that she had no idea what it meant. I just wanted to see whether she’d admit that, or how closely she’d copy and paste from another website after she looked it up.

MadisonConservative on May 17, 2008 at 11:53 AM

Well you have to admit she know at least as much as the fools who enacted that stupid ban.

Oldnuke on May 17, 2008 at 12:15 PM

A sure way to tell if someone is a liberal spoon fed media wonk is if they think the 2nd Amendment is for hunting, and thereby conclude that assault weapons should be banned…because why would you need one to hunt with.
If anything, everyone should own a gun…it should be a requirement.

Conservative Voice on May 17, 2008 at 2:02 PM

Define “assault weapon”. No, I mean without wikipedia or google. Show me you knew exactly what that term meant when you used it.

MadisonConservative on May 17, 2008 at 4:02 AM

A semi automatic or automatic weapon or a machine gun like the drug gangs/gangs used here in NYC for years.

AprilOrit on May 17, 2008 at 2:30 PM

In other words, the fact that AprilOrit was using the term in that context was proof that she had no idea what it meant. I just wanted to see whether she’d admit that, or how closely she’d copy and paste from another website after she looked it up.

MadisonConservative on May 17, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Well you have to admit she know at least as much as the fools who enacted that stupid ban.

Oldnuke on May 17, 2008 at 12:15 PM

I just came back on, didn’t get your question. So before you start taking my inventory and calling me names….shame on you.

AprilOrit on May 17, 2008 at 2:33 PM

But not one of you has admitted using one for hunting.

Why?

AprilOrit on May 17, 2008 at 2:34 PM

I just came back on, didn’t get your question. So before you start taking my inventory and calling me names….shame on you.
AprilOrit on May 17, 2008 at 2:33 PM

I’m sorry but I don’t understand what you mean. I didn’t even make a disparaging remark about you and I certainly did not call you a name. I was sort of justifying your position. At least you seem to be trying to understand what the issue is and what the opposing point of view is. I certainly don’t hold it against you that you hold a view that is different from mine. I certainly do hold it against the legislators that enacted the assault weapons ban because they should have enough information to make at least a competent bill and it certainly was not. AS far as using an assault weapon for hunting there are several posts explaining why they are not used for hunting. I don’t hunt but have owned several firearms that could conceivably fall into that category. They are fun to shoot and people use them to hone their shooting skills. Again the second amendment is not about hunting. Sorry about the misspelling and missing letters. I have a minor vision problem which causes a blind spot and it seems to be acting up today.

Oldnuke on May 17, 2008 at 3:12 PM

A semi automatic or automatic weapon or a machine gun like the drug gangs/gangs used here in NYC for years.

AprilOrit on May 17, 2008 at 2:30 PM

Congratulations. You’re completely and utterly wrong. Read up for the actual meaning.

I just came back on, didn’t get your question. So before you start taking my inventory and calling me names….shame on you.

AprilOrit on May 17, 2008 at 2:33 PM

I didn’t call you any names, so no false accusations please.

MadisonConservative on May 17, 2008 at 4:30 PM

But not one of you has admitted using one for hunting.

Why?

AprilOrit on May 17, 2008 at 2:34 PM

I don’t hunt. If I did, however, I would have no problem using a semi-auto AR-15, Cold M4 or M16, Hecker and Koch G3, etc. The average 30.06 your grandfather used had a bigger cartridge. By carrying on this argument, you’re showing a total lack of knowledge on rifles, ammunition, and weapons in general. That was reinforced by your continual reference to “machine guns like the drug gangs use”. They use whatever stolen weaponry that they can get their hands on. Whatever they use is used somewhere else in the world by a military or police force, or was used by the same at some point in history.

You are talking like a newscaster. Before you start talking about cop killer bullets, teflon-coated ammo, and plastic machine guns, please, do some actual reading about firearms. I have no respect for people who are willfully ignorant about a topic, but discuss it anyway.

MadisonConservative on May 17, 2008 at 4:35 PM

The topic of guns brings out “teh Stoopid.”

There are so many technical inaccuracies on this thread, I can’t even cope anymore. I used to try to correct that stuff, but I can’t keep up.

This is one of those topics where urban legends have completely overwhelmed reality. Suffice it to say that AR-15s and M14s are frequently used for small/medium game, the .308 and 7.62 NATO are functionally identical (apart from the headspace issue) and inadequate for anything properly called “big game,” the AWB was a “scary looking thing ban” and had nothing to do with reality, it doesn’t matter at all whether the gun a criminal uses to shoot a shopkeeper has a bayonet lug, and it is literally impossible to argue with a gun-control proponent because if they weren’t invincibly ignorant they wouldn’t hold the position they do.

I really mean that – I actively debated the issue passionately for years, and I never ran across a gun control proponent who didn’t either A) change their mind, B) actively ignore reality, or C) lie constantly, including in the face of overwhelming evidence.

It’s the same as with Marxists – you can’t argue with them because their first premise is that they’re right, and their second premise is that their ideas would work if only people were what they wanted people to be instead of what they are.

It’s like nailing Jello to a wall. Only if you can’t make the Jello stick, your civilization doesn’t collapse.

Merovign on May 17, 2008 at 4:53 PM

and it is literally impossible to argue with a gun-control proponent because if they weren’t invincibly ignorant they wouldn’t hold the position they do.
Merovign on May 17, 2008 at 4:53 PM

In a couple of decades I’ve managed to sway exactly 1 gun control advocate.

Oldnuke on May 17, 2008 at 5:02 PM

the .308 and 7.62 NATO are functionally identical (apart from the headspace issue) and inadequate for anything properly called “big game,”
Merovign on May 17, 2008 at 4:53 PM

Opinions vary.

and everyone’s got one.

Oldnuke on May 17, 2008 at 6:08 PM

I have always agreed Huckabee is an idiot. His joke just droned on and on, when he realized it was falling flat and just downright stupid. That is when he should have stopped. We can accept his apology, but we can’t ignore his stupidity.

Mark

http://mark24609.blogspot.com/

There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. John Maynard Keynes

“No hay forma más sutil y segura de volcar la base existente de la so­ciedad que el de corromper la moneda” John Maynard Keynes

mark24609 on May 17, 2008 at 6:30 PM

I don’t hunt. If I did, however, I would have no problem using a semi-auto AR-15, Cold M4 or M16, Hecker and Koch G3, etc. The average 30.06 your grandfather used had a bigger cartridge. By carrying on this argument, you’re showing a total lack of knowledge on rifles, ammunition, and weapons in general. That was reinforced by your continual reference to “machine guns like the drug gangs use”. They use whatever stolen weaponry that they can get their hands on. Whatever they use is used somewhere else in the world by a military or police force, or was used by the same at some point in history.

You are talking like a newscaster. Before you start talking about cop killer bullets, teflon-coated ammo, and plastic machine guns, please, do some actual reading about firearms. I have no respect for people who are willfully ignorant about a topic, but discuss it anyway.

MadisonConservative on May 17, 2008 at 4:35 PM

First off I am a NY jew, the only hunting I usually do is for a good bargain. I too have no respect for people who are willfully ignorant about a topic, like jews and hunting, but discuss it anyway.

My Rabbi is against hunting completely. Causing pain and death to animals for sport is not really something he pushes or practices.

AprilOrit on May 17, 2008 at 7:22 PM

PS: my hunting ground is generally Bloomingdales or Macy 34th Street on Sunday.

AprilOrit on May 17, 2008 at 7:24 PM

First off I am a NY jew, the only hunting I usually do is for a good bargain. I too have no respect for people who are willfully ignorant about a topic, like jews and hunting, but discuss it anyway.

My Rabbi is against hunting completely. Causing pain and death to animals for sport is not really something he pushes or practices.

AprilOrit on May 17, 2008 at 7:22 PM

Wow. I didn’t know the only purpose of firearms was hunting, and therefore not hunting means you can’t learn anything about them. I was under a crazy misconception. I was also under the crazy misconception that hunting meant you ate the animal for food, used its skin for a purpose, or its fur. I guess that’s just what we Wisconsin yokels do, us rednecks. I didn’t know people hunted just to cause pain and death to animals for sport.

Do you give classes in The Wonderful World of AprilOrit?

MadisonConservative on May 17, 2008 at 7:30 PM

Well, the Huck-haters had fun with this! That’s all that really matters. Nevermind Mike is a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment right of Americans to own firearms for self-protection and he was speaking on YOUR behalf for the continuation of those rights. Forget about that. What really matters here .. yeah, the real story here … is… um…let’s see here… OH! It’s that most of you are what’s wrong with America today — especially the liberals here “posing” as Christians. These lying con artists sing the Christian Hymns while all the time their agenda has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Mr. Huckabee makes a simple joke about someone who might take away YOUR guns, and you jump all over him to the point of calling them ‘evil’? You gotta be kidding me… hahahaha….oh, this is too much. Don’t you ever compain that Political Correctness is destroying America’s culture again. Hypocrites.

apacalyps on May 17, 2008 at 7:32 PM

Wow. I didn’t know the only purpose of firearms was hunting, and therefore not hunting means you can’t learn anything about them. I was under a crazy misconception. I was also under the crazy misconception that hunting meant you ate the animal for food, used its skin for a purpose, or its fur. I guess that’s just what we Wisconsin yokels do, us rednecks. I didn’t know people hunted just to cause pain and death to animals for sport.

Do you give classes in The Wonderful World of AprilOrit?

MadisonConservative on May 17, 2008 at 7:30 PM

I live in Manhattan, I am not allowed to really own a firearm. And most jews do not usually hunt, although i do wear fur.

AprilOrit on May 17, 2008 at 7:35 PM

If I lived in Wisconsin I’m sure I would feel differently.

I might even consider hunting for a coat I suppose.

AprilOrit on May 17, 2008 at 7:36 PM

apacalyps on May 17, 2008 at 7:32 PM

Is there anything Mike Huckabee could do or say that would make you think he had crossed the line?

How about all his suicide “jokes?”
What about his “jokes” hinting he would shoot people who did not vote for him?
How about his “jokes” about shooting his political opponents?
Did you like his “jokes” about slashing the tires of those who were not going to vote for him?

You turning every single problem people have with Huckabee into religion is just ignorant and immature.

If Mike Huckabee were an athesist, Jew or Catholic he would have caught hell for this comment.

You discredit yourself by insisting he is incapable of human error JUST becauce he was a Baptist Preacher. Being a Baptist or a preacher does not make one immune from error.

EJDolbow on May 17, 2008 at 7:39 PM

I live in Manhattan, I am not allowed to really own a firearm. And most jews do not usually hunt, although i do wear fur.

AprilOrit on May 17, 2008 at 7:35 PM

I emphasized a portion of your post. Consider it and ask yourself why?

Then read this.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Oldnuke on May 17, 2008 at 7:51 PM

I live in Manhattan, I am not allowed to really own a firearm. And most jews do not usually hunt, although i do wear fur.

AprilOrit on May 17, 2008 at 7:35 PM
I emphasized a portion of your post. Consider it and ask yourself why?

Then read this.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Oldnuke on May 17, 2008 at 7:51 PM

Because Rudy wouldn’t allow it as he followed in lockstep with every Mayor and Governor before him becuase of organized crime, gangs, drugs and high crime in a metropolitian area in general.

AprilOrit on May 17, 2008 at 7:59 PM

Because Rudy wouldn’t allow it as he followed in lockstep with every Mayor and Governor before him becuase of organized crime, gangs, drugs and high crime in a metropolitian area in general.

AprilOrit on May 17, 2008 at 7:59 PM

Ok, are you with a gang, a drug dealer or organized crime? I thought those were illegal…You know like guns. Why is it that only law abiding citizens don’t have guns? Why mention Rudy, is he the one that outlawed guns for law abiding citizens in New York? What would you do if the government outlawed your wearing of fur?

Oldnuke on May 17, 2008 at 8:17 PM

Meanwhile, most modern carbines, sub-machine guns, semi-automatic rifles, etc., would be considered assault weapons.

I have an old semi-automatic Marlin .22 with a 10 round tube magazine. It’s not much good, it jams after about a half a tube of firing. I guess that’s an assault weapon now. :)
I never understood why the gangbangers never used sawed off shotguns. They’re effective and cheap. You can buy a cheap 12 gauge double barrel for a little over a hundred bucks. A hacksaw and a file you you’re done.

Btw, AprilOrit – the second amendment has absolutely NOTHING to do with hunting. Look it up in the Federalist Papers. That’ll explain it to you.

abcurtis on May 17, 2008 at 8:18 PM

I live in Manhattan, I am not allowed to really own a firearm. And most jews do not usually hunt, although i do wear fur.

AprilOrit on May 17, 2008 at 7:35 PM

Then you’re not a free citizen – you’re a subject. All the bad guys own firearms dont they? Why do they have that right and you dont?
And what does wearing fur have to do with anything? Did you hunt it down and kill and skin it yourself?

abcurtis on May 17, 2008 at 8:21 PM

AprilOrit, the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting. Hunting is not a right, hence you have to buy a license and even then you are limited to what and how much. How many people do you know hunt with a handgun…hopefully zero, because a handgun is not meant as a hunting tool.
The 2nd Amendment is about owning a gun, because we have a fundamental right to protect ourselves.

Now for another question, I never understood why there are liberal Jews, it would seem to me you would want the smallest amount of government And you would want to have as many guns you could buy. History would tell a different story if the Jews in Germany were able to and carried fire arms. All you have to do is look at Israel and see that when the general population is armed and ready, the neighbors think twice before picking a fight.

Conservative Voice on May 17, 2008 at 8:24 PM

Because Rudy wouldn’t allow it as he followed in lockstep with every Mayor and Governor before him becuase of organized crime, gangs, drugs and high crime in a metropolitian area in general.

AprilOrit on May 17, 2008 at 7:59 PM

And that’s only ONE of the reasons Rudy would have never have gotten my vote. Meanwhile, the bad guys in all those areas you mentioned still have guns, and you dont.
And not every governor. My former governor, George Allen, created an “on demand” CCW permit. All you had to do was apply to the county clerk’s office after a gun safety course, pass a background check, and the CCW permit was yours. Of course, here in Virginia it’s legal to carry openly. You only need a permit if you plan to carry concealed. And in all the years since Allen implemented the CCW permit, not a single person with a CCW permit has been arrested or convicted of a gun crime. That’s the difference between a free citizen and a subject.

abcurtis on May 17, 2008 at 8:27 PM

One of the things that most importantly has to be remembered is that when asked about Second Amendment, often you’ll hear candidates start talking about, well, I’m a hunter. And they immediately go into telling about the last time they went hunting, even if it was 50 years ago. And that’s fine. I’m always happy to hear it. But when a person, when asked about the Second Amendment, begins to tell me about his or her hunting license, the first thing they just told me is they have not a clue; they do not understand the essence of the Second Amendment.

Full Speech

Red Pill on May 17, 2008 at 8:49 PM

First of all, it protects our families. We have a constitutional right granted to us, in the wisdom of our forefathers, to protect our families, to protect them from criminals, to protect them from whatever might harm them. And it is as much of a constitutional right as it is the right to speak out against our government.

And let me be very clear: I do not believe the Second Amendment has any geographical boundaries. It does not apply differently on the East Coast than it does in the South.

Full Speech

Red Pill on May 17, 2008 at 8:52 PM

Red Pill on May 17, 2008 at 8:49 PM

And on this issue he is correct.

Conservative Voice on May 17, 2008 at 8:54 PM

I live in Manhattan, I am not allowed to really own a firearm.

AprilOrit on May 17, 2008 at 7:35 PM

There should be no sense in which people believe that there can be a different set of gun laws that somehow control the Second Amendment in urban areas than in rural areas. If that were the case, the Founding Fathers would have put some type of restrictive language in the Second Amendment, which they did not. That’s why I support the Castle Doctrine and believe that it ought to reign true, where people have a right to protect themselves, and that they shouldn’t have to prove that they were protecting themselves when in fact they were defending their own property and their own families.

–Again, Full Speech

Red Pill on May 17, 2008 at 8:56 PM

It’s also important to realize that we’ve recently seen an assault on the Second Amendment in the aftermath of a natural disaster, and I’m speaking of Katrina. It was an outrageous assault by the police when they began to take the firearms away from law- abiding citizens, frankly, who were themselves their only defense against criminals and once again a reminder of the importance of the Second Amendment, because sometimes, one cannot wait on another, in particularly government, to come and to protect one’s home and one’s life.

The Second Amendment is also about preserving our freedom. Again, I think sometimes people think it’s all about hunting, but it’s really about our freedom. It is the last goal line, the last bastion of defense against even our own government, should it go completely awry and turn into tyranny. And I know that sounds a little radical in this day and time, and some people don’t understand it, but if they really would think through it, they would realize that an unarmed citizenry is a citizenry that has no capacity against even its own government, should its government forget what it’s supposed to do.

I also believe that that means that our laws should always be under the aegis of the United States Constitution, and we should never, ever even contemplate having Americans under some type of international law influenced by or even tolerate judges who would try to interpret our Second Amendment in light of some international law designed by the U.N. or carried out by others.

(same speech)

Red Pill on May 17, 2008 at 8:58 PM

Hey April your a hoot! The guys don’t understand shopping and sales etc., but I do. Just a little levity – my husband is sure that if an elephant was on a cheap enough sale, we would have one in our backyard.
The people in my state do hunt and use the meat to feed their families. Good use of guns. And for some families that is their whole year of meat. Good for them.
I could not hunt, just because I’d probably cry my eyes out about the animal. A friend gave us some deer meat and all I could see were big brown eyes in my mind. But then so do cows have big brown eyes. Good thing my meat comes in a package, or I’d be a veg so fast.
However, I agree with those who have posted about a well regulated militia – that is the real reason.
I’ve belonged to the NRA for a few years, but don’t have a gun. Would like to buy one that is not too big, fits in one hand and doesn’t have a huge recoil or break your shoulder when it’s fired.
Red Pill, no one doubts that huck can read a well written speech. It’s the off the cuff stuff that tells you more about his character.

Bambi on May 17, 2008 at 11:01 PM

Red Pill, no one doubts that huck can read a well written speech. It’s the off the cuff stuff that tells you more about his character.

Bambi on May 17, 2008 at 11:01 PM

It’s Obama who reads speeches other people have written.

I believe Huckabee wrote the speech I’m quoting. (Which was actually delivered September 28, 2007, not yesterday). Video of the speech I’m quoting is available here.

I haven’t yet found links for a full transcript and full video of the speech Huckabee gave yesterday.

The off the cuff stuff was about 12 seconds of yesterday’s speech. Why don’t you judge his character from the entire speech?

Red Pill on May 17, 2008 at 11:42 PM

I can judge his character by other things that he’s done and said, not just this one instance.

Bambi on May 17, 2008 at 11:44 PM

Let’s hope that the United States of America never becomes like the following country, highlighted in a current DrudgeReport link:

In a nation that has not tasted and – with very few exceptions – does not expect or demand justice or freedom, all that matters is stability and security.

You can forget any talk from the new President about “stamping out” corruption. This social and economic disease is insidious and rampant.

In a country where the “separation of powers” has become a bad joke, the law courts are no less corrupt.

The threat of prosecution for tax fraud is the [Government's] weapon of choice against anyone who dares to challenge its hegemony.

When [citizen], once the richest man in [country], used his oil wealth to promote human rights and democracy, [fascist leader] detected a threat to his throne.

The [citizen] was duly arrested and convicted of fraud. He now languishes in jail where he is in the third year of an eight-year prison sentence.

Almost every national radio and television station is now controlled directly or indirectly by the state, and the same applies to every newspaper of any influence.

That diminishing number who have the courage to investigate or speak out against the abuses perpetrated by the rich and powerful very soon find themselves out of a job – or, in an alarming number of cases, on the receiving end of a deadly bullet.

Some 20 journalists have been killed in suspicious circumstances since [fascist leader] came to office. No one has yet been convicted for any of these crimes.

[fascist leader] calls the system over which he presides “sovereign democracy”. I think a better term is “cryptofascism”

In the absence of any experience of accountability or transparency – the basic ingredients of an open society – even the most thoughtful [citizens] are prone to say: “[We] need a strong man at the centre.”

Any guesses what country that is?

Red Pill on May 17, 2008 at 11:56 PM

Hey April your a hoot! The guys don’t understand shopping and sales etc., but I do. Just a little levity – my husband is sure that if an elephant was on a cheap enough sale, we would have one in our backyard.
The people in my state do hunt and use the meat to feed their families. Good use of guns. And for some families that is their whole year of meat. Good for them.
I could not hunt, just because I’d probably cry my eyes out about the animal. A friend gave us some deer meat and all I could see were big brown eyes in my mind. But then so do cows have big brown eyes. Good thing my meat comes in a package, or I’d be a veg so fast.
However, I agree with those who have posted about a well regulated militia – that is the real reason.
I’ve belonged to the NRA for a few years, but don’t have a gun. Would like to buy one that is not too big, fits in one hand and doesn’t have a huge recoil or break your shoulder when it’s fired.
Red Pill, no one doubts that huck can read a well written speech. It’s the off the cuff stuff that tells you more about his character.

Bambi on May 17, 2008 at 11:01 PM

Bambi,

I have no problem with hunting, it’s just that I live in NYC, the only game here to hunt is rats and rats with wings or pidgeons.

I just didn’t understand the concept of a huge weapon to kill a deer, especially if you want a good haul of meat or a good solid pelt. I wear fur, have several fur coats which I love, a great pair of mink earmuffs with matching mink lined leather gloves, I’ve bought my nephew a mink lined baby blanket from Tiffany’s, so killing animals for food, fashion and sport doesn’t bother me.

It does bother my Rabbi however. Not the fur or the meat, but the hunting for sport part.

I love beef, I am a huge meat eater, love game, love Ostrich, Buffalo. It’s all good.

I do love to fish, that’s a great sport. We fish Upstate NY.

AprilOrit on May 18, 2008 at 1:05 AM

The Real Story Behind This Post…

Imagine, if you can, that whatever noise it was that distracted Mike Huckabee had not happened.

Huckabee would not have made a joke in response to it.

Would Allahpundit have posted a story about Huckabee’s speech?

No.

(Even the video here is just a small portion of Huck’s speech.)

So what’s the real story behind this post?

Was it for Allahpundit to promote some significant statement that Huckabee made to the NRA about national security and self-defense (just as Allahpundit promoted what McCain said)?

No.

The real story behind this post is Allahpundit sharing the anti-Huck bias of the MSM, waiting to pounce on anything Politically Incorrect that comes out of Huck’s mouth, and breathlessly hoping that it spells the end of Huck’s political career.

The headline itself is biased: “Huckabee jokes at NRA conference about someone trying to shoot Obama”.

“Trying to shoot” someone takes three things:
1) Aiming the gun at them
2) The gun was previously loaded with ammo
3) Pulling the trigger

Huckabee (poorly) joked about only #1.

By saying “Trying to shoot”, you imply #2 and #3. That’s not fair, and distorts a joke about Obama’s reaction to seeing a gun pointed at him (admittedly a bad joke), and turns that into a joke about an assassination attempt (a horrific statement).

That distortion is worse than the joke!

All of us have said stupid things in our lives. How would you like for someone to take a 12 second snippet of something stupid you said, and try to use that to end your career? That would be like saying that Ed Morrissey’s blogging career should be ended because of the gaffe he made here. That would be stupid. And it’s equally stupid to hope that Huck’s gaffe here is the end of his political career. Take a look at how many people here have said in their comments that they hope this is the end of Huck.

You who did so should be ashamed of yourselves.

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
Matthew 7:12

Now, in an attempt to be “fair and balanced”, here’s what I think about Huckabee’s apology. It wasn’t the best or worst I’ve ever heard, but it should have been better.

Here’s the worst I’ve ever heard:

I am sorry that this misunderstanding happened at all, and I regret this escalation, and I apologize.

That kind of non-apology puts the blame on others:
1) You misunderstood me.
2) You escalated it.
3) I’m sorry that you did those things.

Who gave that “apology”? Democratic Rep. Cynthia McKinney.

A runner-up for worst “apology” is the one Obama gave here.

Now here is the apology that Huckabee gave:

During my speech at the NRA a loud noise backstage, that sounded like a chair falling, distracted the crowd and interrupted my speech. I made an off hand remark that was in no way intended to offend or disparage Sen. Obama. I apologize that my comments were offensive, that was never my intention.

Huckabee makes the point that the remark was “off hand” and was a response to the loud noise backstage (which is evident if you watch the video). On a positive note, Huckabee puts the blame on himself (not others) and takes accountability for his comments being offensive. I believe that it is true that it was “never his intention” to “offend or disparage Sen. Obama” in his prepared speech. However, I believe that the “off hand remark” was intended to poke fun at (“disparage”, if you will) the man who implied that NRA members “cling to guns”. But since the off hand remark itself was “never his intention”, I don’t think Huckabee is being dishonest in his apology. But he could have (and in my opinion should have) done better with the apology.

If you want to see how this incident affects Mike Huckabee’s political future, watch the voting results from Kentucky on Tuesday. I think Huckabee will get in the double digits yet again.

Red Pill on May 18, 2008 at 1:56 AM

I tried to post a fairly long post, and it hasn’t shown up in several minutes, so I’m assuming that something caused it got tossed…I’ll try submitting it in smaller pieces, but I apologize in advance if the original post shows up later and this ends up being a double post…

Red Pill on May 18, 2008 at 2:05 AM

The Real Story Behind This Post…

Imagine, if you can, that whatever noise it was that distracted Mike Huckabee had not happened.

Huckabee would not have made a joke in response to it.

Would Allahpundit have posted a story about Huckabee’s speech?

No.

(Even the video here is just a small portion of Huck’s speech.)

So what’s the real story behind this post?

Was it for Allahpundit to promote some significant statement that Huckabee made to the NRA about national security and self-defense (just as Allahpundit promoted what McCain said)?

No.

The real story behind this post is Allahpundit sharing the anti-Huck bias of the MSM, waiting to pounce on anything Politically Incorrect that comes out of Huck’s mouth, and breathlessly hoping that it spells the end of Huck’s political career.

Red Pill on May 18, 2008 at 2:06 AM

The headline itself is biased: “Huckabee jokes at NRA conference about someone trying to shoot Obama”.

“Trying to shoot” someone takes three things:
1) Aiming the gun at them.
2) The gun was previously loaded with ammo.
3) Pulling the trigger.

Huckabee (poorly) joked about only #1.

By saying “Trying to shoot”, you imply #2 and #3.
That’s not fair, and distorts a joke about Obama’s reaction to seeing a gun pointed at him (admittedly a bad joke), and turns that into a joke about an assassination attempt (a horrific statement).

That distortion is worse than the joke!

Red Pill on May 18, 2008 at 2:08 AM

All of us have said stupid things in our lives. How would you like for someone to take a 12 second snippet of something stupid you said, and try to use that to end your career? That would be like saying that Ed Morrissey’s blogging career should be ended because of the gaffe he made here. That would be stupid. And it’s equally stupid to hope that Huck’s gaffe here is the end of his political career. Take a look at how many people here have said in their comments that they hope this is the end of Huck.

You who did so should be ashamed of yourselves.

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
Matthew 7:12

Red Pill on May 18, 2008 at 2:09 AM

Now, in an attempt to be “fair and balanced”, here’s what I think about Huckabee’s apology. It wasn’t the best or worst I’ve ever heard, but it should have been better. Here’s the worst I’ve ever heard:

I am sorry that this misunderstanding happened at all, and I regret this escalation, and I apologize.

That kind of non-apology puts the blame on others:
1) You misunderstood me.
2) You escalated it.
3) I’m sorry that you did those things.

Who gave that “apology”? Democratic Rep. Cynthia McKinney.

A runner-up for worst “apology” is the one Obama gave here.

Now here is the apology that Huckabee gave:

During my speech at the NRA a loud noise backstage, that sounded like a chair falling, distracted the crowd and interrupted my speech. I made an off hand remark that was in no way intended to offend or disparage Sen. Obama. I apologize that my comments were offensive, that was never my intention.

Huckabee makes the point that the remark was “off hand” and was a response to the loud noise backstage (which is evident if you watch the video). On a positive note, Huckabee takes accountability for his comments being offensive. I believe that it is true that it was “never his intention” to “offend or disparage Sen. Obama” in his prepared speech. However, I believe that the “off hand remark” was intended to poke fun at (“disparage”, if you will) the man who implied that NRA members “cling to guns”. But since the off hand remark itself was “never his intention”, I don’t think Huckabee is being dishonest in his apology. But he could have (and in my opinion should have) done better with the apology.

Red Pill on May 18, 2008 at 2:10 AM

If you want to see how this incident affects Mike Huckabee’s political future, watch the voting results from Kentucky on Tuesday. I think Huckabee will get in the double digits yet again.

Red Pill on May 18, 2008 at 2:11 AM

I believe in the sanctity of life. I believe in lower taxes, more local government. There are some basic things that cause me to say, “Look, I need to be a Republican.” When the Republican Party abandons those principles, they abandon me.

Question: Where did the train go off the tracks?

First of all, the spending issue. Second of all, incompetence. They haven`t managed things well. Third, there`s been a complete indifference to corruption.

The Republicans — and look, with all due respect, under this administration we`ve become more Hamiltonian. I almost see the ghost of Alexander Hamilton coming up out of the grave, taking the federal government over.

And I want to say, excuse me, we had this debate 230 years ago. Jefferson won. We have a weak federal system, strong states, not the other way around. What we don`t want in this country is to have an overly centralized federal government where everything has to go and then you have really weak states that have to raise their hand and ask permission.

Red Pill on May 18, 2008 at 2:43 AM

Source for above quotes:
transcripts[DOT]cnn[DOT]com/TRANSCRIPTS/0710/19/gb.01.html

Red Pill on May 18, 2008 at 2:46 AM

I do love to fish, that’s a great sport. We fish Upstate NY.

AprilOrit on May 18, 2008 at 1:05 AM

Fish have feelings too!!!!
PETA tried to get Tim Pawlenty to ban walleye fishing in MN!

http://wcco.com/topstories/PETA.Gov.Tim.2.349166.html

Watch the video. LOL

Chakra Hammer on May 18, 2008 at 4:00 AM

Red Pill on May 18, 2008 at 2:43 AM

He says great things, but his record says otherwise. There are many things I do like about Huck, but I can not overlook his class envy or religious plays.

Conservative Voice on May 18, 2008 at 2:26 PM

Class envy? I don’t see it.

Religious plays? Nothing close to this.

Red Pill on May 18, 2008 at 3:58 PM

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/09/new-huckabee-ad-in-michigan-your-economic-woes-are-due-to-people-like-mitt-romney/

http://frontpagemag.com/articles/Read.aspx?GUID=0D4C4050-3297-4435-8472-2D7BCB47B619

Basically every time he went against Romney he played the class envy card.

And as far as religious card, I don’t have a problem with a politician saying he is a God fearing man…that is fine and good. He played the religious card as a means to pit one’s faith against another. He did it with Brownback and he did it with Romney. Sure he apologized, only after the score was made, his apologies seem rather vacant of sincerity. And he certainly didn’t stop any of his Huck-bots from their attempts at smearing Romney because he is a gasp…a Mormon.
He understands Guns and Abortions, but when it comes to Freedom of Religion and Property Rights ( aka capitalism ) he doesn’t get it.

Conservative Voice on May 18, 2008 at 6:40 PM

To add to my post above, if Huckabee attacked Romney on his weak stance on the 2nd amendment instead of using religion and class envy, then I wouldn’t have anything against the guy.

Conservative Voice on May 18, 2008 at 9:49 PM

I think somebody on this board has taken too many red pills.

EJDolbow on May 18, 2008 at 11:49 PM

EJDolbow is just disappointed with the thread:
The groveler: Romney’s quest for VP

Red Pill on May 19, 2008 at 1:06 AM

And yet Red Pill ignores how Huck plays the religious card and class envy card again

Conservative Voice on May 19, 2008 at 1:49 AM

These slips of the tongue tell us what really goes on in his brain. Behind that smile (I think it is really a smirk) is a very devious and manipulative personality. I’m not sure I could vote for McCain if Huckabee is on the ticket. Hopefully in four years Huckabee will have stuck his foot into his mouth up to his knee. Guess you can tell by now I don’t care for the man.

kaye on May 19, 2008 at 4:18 AM

I did, where does it mention assault weapons??

AprilOrit on May 16, 2008 at 10:46 PM

That part that speaks of …arms.

Now, can you answer a question for me?

Where does the First Amendment mention television cameras?

soundingboard on May 19, 2008 at 4:43 AM

So my question again is:

We need the assault weapons because the government is armed with them already and without them we could not arm oursdelves properly??

AprilOrit on May 16, 2008 at 10:54 PM

Essentially? Yes.

soundingboard on May 19, 2008 at 4:54 AM

A semi automatic or automatic weapon or a machine gun like the drug gangs/gangs used here in NYC for years.

AprilOrit on May 17, 2008 at 2:30 PM

It’s not my intention to sound rude, but may I suggest you educate yourself in the basic technical characteristics of firearms.

You seem to be laboring under the propaganda of the disarmament lobby meme that anything that looks like a machine gun is a machine gun.

soundingboard on May 19, 2008 at 5:27 AM

So my question again is:

We need the assault weapons because the government is armed with them already and without them we could not arm oursdelves properly??

AprilOrit on May 16, 2008 at 10:54 PM

Essentially? Yes.

soundingboard on May 19, 2008 at 4:54 AM

I agree with soundingboard. A fundamental purpose of the second amendment is to allow “We the people” to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government.

If the government is allowed to ban more powerful weapons but then use those same weapons themselves in attacks on civilian citizens (a la Waco, TX), then “We the people” have no way to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government.

Now, don’t assume that I’m a “gun freak”. If anything, I’m a “freedom freak”. I don’t even own a gun (although my wife does…she had to drive through the LA Rodney King riots, and subsequently bought a Ruger and was trained how to shoot by an off-duty FBI officer…she is an excellent shot and has hollow-point ammo).

Red Pill on May 19, 2008 at 9:23 AM

austinnelly on May 16, 2008 at 11:46 PM

Win.

spmat on May 19, 2008 at 2:24 PM

AprilOrit on May 16, 2008 at 10:54 PM

I know i am way late on this and probably noone will ever see this, BUT what the hell do you think a musket was to the FF?
in that day the Musket was the most powerful “Assult-Weapon” in the world. and every citizen was allowed to have one according to the 2nd ammendment.

Jeez.

-Wasteland Man.

WastelandMan on May 20, 2008 at 4:33 AM

Kentucky: Precincts Reporting: 100%

Democrats
Candidate # of votes % of total
Hillary Clinton 458,645 67.20%
Barack Obama 209,731 30.73%
John Edwards 14,175 2.08%

Republicans
Candidate # of votes % of total
John McCain 142,854 72.30%
Mike Huckabee 16,238 8.22%
Ron Paul 13,439 6.80%
Uncommitted 10,629 5.38%
Mitt Romney 9,151 4.63%
Rudy Giuliani 3,126 1.58%

Observations:
1) McCain only got 5% more of the Republican Primary vote (72%) than Hillary got of Democrat Primary vote (67%).

2) Huckabee’s impromptu joke at the NRA may have cost him getting into double digits, but once again, Mike Huckabee beat the rest of the pack (Ron Paul, Uncommitted, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani)

Red Pill on May 20, 2008 at 10:43 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4