DC Representation Linked To Second Amendment. I Am Sick And Tired Of Naïve, Hysterical, Raving Gun Control Advocates Who Don’t Know The First Thing They Are Talking About.
"The action I am taking is no more than a radical measure to hasten the explosion of truth and justice. I have but one passion: to enlighten those who have been kept in the dark, in the name of humanity which has suffered so much and is entitled to happiness. My fiery protest is simply the cry of my very soul. Let them dare, then,
to bring me before a court of law and let the enquiry take place in
broad daylight!"
- Emile Zola, J'accuse! (1898) –
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask
not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed
you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget
that ye were our countrymen!”
-Sam Adams-
“…Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms…”
-James Madison at Avalon Project, Yale University-
The City That Can’t Recover From The Psychosis Of Being Called “The Murder Capital Of America”.
Is no surprise to me that the DC Representation Legislation has been complicated by what the anti-gun crowd labeled immediately as the death knell of firearms regulation ie., “be "the first step to removing all common-sense gun regulation all over this land."…Dianne Feinstein. I normally find myself in agreement on most matters with Senator Feinstein but her rhetorical outburst over this matter is not only a hysterical over statement; it is irrational and irresponsible to use her own words.
Let me digress for a few paragraphs here to say that the central issues in the DC Representation Issue are complicated enough with merit on both sides of the legal/constitutional issue without having to throw in one of the most politically vexing and divisive issues, second only to abortion/choice. One of the things I am not going to tolerate in this debate is the charge that this is all the NRA’s doing…because that is simply political garbage. There are so many damned idiots that think they can get away with screaming NRA and the demonizing will simply come into play. I support the second amendment with a strict constructionist purist position, I am not now, nor have I ever been an NRA member…just for the record.
Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet has written that “the fights over the Second Amendment are really about something else…about * how we understand ourselves * as Americans. I could not agree more as the irrational national debate that has long surrounded the issue clearly proves that point.
| |
Nearly seven decades ago, the Supreme Court analyzed the meaning of these words: “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.” Those are the words of the Second Amendment, written into the Constitution on Dec.15, 1791. The Court has not examined the meaning of those words since the ruling in U.S. v. Miller, on May 15, 1939. The debate over what the Court meant — and over what those words mean — has continued with growing intensity. Until now, the Court had refused repeatedly to resolve the constitutional debate. The case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290) is a pure, and outwardly simple, test of the Second Amendment — although there are complications that might (will) limit the scope of any final decision.
The Second Amendment was upheld in a clear and decisive “Individual Right” interpretation of the Second Amendment after a historic and most articulate long overdue arguing before the court. The Full Opinion!
The current stirring of the witches’ brew stems from: (1) the fact that DC Mayor Fenty and the District governing body have at every turn, every opportunity attempted, without success, to circumvent the decision of the High Court, (2) Pro Gun Advocates, Republican and Democrats have seized the moment to end that conduct as a condition of Representation, and yes the NRA is right there, and (3) Democrats, many, have backed away from the more gun control position as a matter of politics; it has cost them dearly. And here is where the point needs to be made, where candor and truth should prevail. That cost has not come at the hands of the NRA because the votes lost are legion to the NRA’s membership. They are the common folk of America who believe in the right to protect themselves, their families their property from criminal elements and our own government if necessary. There are the facts.
The ownership of a firearm and the use of a firearm in those most extreme circumstances under pins the resistance to any further firearms regulation and that pendulum is in sway to a direction where the reinstatement of a prohibition against the sale and ownership of assault weapons may very well fail! The Gun is a part of the very fabric of this nation and anyone wanting to rip it from that fabric best be prepared to totally reweave that fabric with iron clad provisos that eliminate the causes/reasons for violence in our society in all forms, whether it be the taking of life with a firearm, a knife, blunt instrument, poison, strangulation with nylons or any other object that can be used to take human life, including those used by the state to snuff out life at home and abroad.
The issue is now, and has always been stopping our species from killing one another, not the weapon chosen to do so. OH, please don’t throw that hackneyed argument that a firearm just makes things so much easier, impersonal and can inflict multiple deaths. So can a pipe bomb or a arsonist’s Molotov Cocktail; and they are less expensive.
Crimes of passion are more often committed with kitchen knives and and instruments of bludgeoning and strangulation. And then there is the less informed media of America who read their scripted news without having any damned idea of what they are saying. Keep track and just see how many know the difference between an automatic weapon and a semi-automatic weapon and a revolver! They flunk on this one!
I have no need to be politically correct or mealy moth about the issue. We humans kill each other for all kinds of reasons. Most of us want to be able to protect ourselves from our fellow beings. Those who would say differently have found themselves in danger. They have never had a gun pointed at them, a knife or ice pick pulled on them on a night street or in the midst of a protest action or union strike. I have, and until you have been there don’t try to tell me what I have the right to be prepared to do!
I am a second Amendment Democrat; I hold The Declaration of Independence as the first and highest law of this land and I understand the fabric of this nation and I listen to what our people say, feel and believe. As a Historian I remember what happened in nations that were disarmed and I remember the types of governments who set about to disarm their citizenry; I would not be a citizen of either. As well meaning as those who would disarm this nation; I ask that they examine their position. Does it make sense or have you arrived at that position lead/manipulated by others?
No Government lasts forever. No Constitution is eternal. There comes a moment in many lives where one must protect him or herself, to kill or be killed. There comes a time, as history has provided more than ample example when the citizens of a nation must take up arms as “citizen soldiers” in Revolution.
Without the right “”To Keep and Bear Arms” we become victims and slaves. This I shall never accept.
The First Amendment Is The Promise; The Second Amendment Is The Guarantee
Senate Approves D.C. Voting Rights Bill With Gun Amendment
The Senate approved, by a 61 to 37 vote, the D.C. Voting Rights bill that would give the city its first ever seat in the House of Representatives. However, the Senate did so only after adding a controversial amendment that would repeal most of the District's local gun-control regulations, potentially throwing a wrench into the process.
The D.C. Vote bill would expand the House permanently by two seats. One would go to strongly Democratic D.C., while the other would go to the next state in line to pick up a seat based on population count. For two years, that seat would be Republican-leaning Utah. It would then pass to whichever state qualified based on Census results.
If it becomes law, the bill will expand the House for the first time since 1913. But it is likely to face a legal challenge that could go all the way to the Supreme Court.
The gun amendment makes the Senate's D.C. Vote legislation significantly different from a companion bill in the House, which is expected to face a floor vote next week.
Differences between the two bills would have to be worked out in negotiations between the two chambers. Proponents of the bill said they hoped the gun language could be removed during those talks.
The gun amendment is similar to a sweeping measure approved by the House last year that was fiercely opposed by the D.C. government. It would limit the District's authority to restrict firearms, repeal the D.C. semiautomatic gun ban and remove gun-registration requirements.
Opponents denounced it on the Senate floor.
"It's reckless, it's irresponsible, it will lead to more violence," charged Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). She said that approval of the amendment would be "the first step to removing all common-sense gun regulation all over this land."
The sponsor of the amendment, Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev) said his goal was "to remove the tremendous barriers and burdens on law-abiding citizens" in the city who were seeking to "protect themselves in their own homes."
He pointed to a large chart showing the D.C. murder rate over the years. "We want the law-abiding citizens to have the arms--not just the criminals," he said. Ensign charged that the D.C. government hadn't gone far enough in reforming its gun laws since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the city's handgun ban last year.
D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) and D.C. Council members disagree with that conclusion. They furiously protested the firearms amendment.
"The District of Columbia leadership is fully united in its opposition to unwarranted amendments that would dramatically damage the District's carefully revised gun law and expose the District to great harm through the undoing of its laws," D.C. Council President Vincent C. Gray and Council Member Phil Mendelson, chairman of the council's public-safety commission, said in a letter to Congress released yesterday.
In a statement after the Senate's vote, Ilir Zherka, executive director of D.C. Vote, a lobbying group, said the city has passed a "significant hurdle in our fight for full democracy for DC residents."
But he added of the gun amendment: "If anything, this amendment has strengthened our resolve to continue to fight for the rights of Washingtonians. Congress repeatedly treats the District as a testing ground for flawed, dangerous legislation. This has to stop - and we'll keep fighting to ensure that the bill signed into law is not tainted by this amendment."
Mendelson said after the vote: "The Senate action is of huge concern because the implications are far greater than anyone can imagine. It strips our authority. The irony here is that on one hand they vote to give us voting representation, but on the other hand they strip any local representation in regards to our gun laws. ... If this prevails [in the end], strengthening our laws against gun violence will be constrained. That has huge public safety implications."
Residents of Washington DC edge closer to full voting rights
AMERICA: The Senate approved an Act which would give the District of Columbia one vote in the House, writes Denis Staunton .
THEY PAY federal taxes serve in the military and live within the shadow of the Capitol dome but residents of Washington DC are unlike other Americans in one important respect – they have no influence over legislation in Congress. The District of Columbia is not a state but a “federal district” and its 600,000 citizens have never had a senator or a voting member of the House of Representatives.
That could be about to change after the Senate this week approved the DC Voting Rights Act, which would give the district one vote in the House. Because the district is overwhelmingly Democratic, Republican-leaning Utah would gain an extra congressional seat.
“This day represents great momentum toward full voting rights,” DC mayor Adrian Fenty said after Thursday’s vote.
Until 1961, Washingtonians were not even allowed to vote in presidential elections but the district’s demands for more democratic representation have become louder in recent years and since 2000, the city’s car license plates have carried the message Taxation without Representation.
In 1971, Congress allowed DC to send a non-voting delegate to the House of Representatives, a position currently held by Eleanor Holmes Norton but until now, efforts to give the district full voting rights have failed to win enough support.
Three years ago, the United Nations Human Rights Committee declared that DC’s lack of voting rights violated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by denying the district’s citizens the right to universal and equal suffrage.
Now, with Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress and a new president who is willing to sign the Bill into law, voting rights advocates are confident that the legislation passed this week will make its way on to the statute books.
Even if the Bill becomes law, however, it could be declared unconstitutional by the supreme court because the US constitution states that members of the House of Representatives should be chosen “by the people of the several states” – and DC is not a state.
DC’s champions argue that the constitutional definition of statehood is vague and that the district is treated as a state in matters such as taxation and interstate commerce.
The voting rights legislation could run into trouble even sooner on account of a Republican-sponsored amendment to the Senate Bill that would overturn DC’s gun control laws, including the city’s ban on semi-automatic weapons.
After 186 murders last year alone, few Washingtonians believe their city needs more guns and Democrats hope to remove the pro-gun amendment before the Bill reaches President Barack Obama’s desk.
Some activists complain that, even if the voting rights Bill becomes law, it will do little to diminish the democratic deficit in the district, where the city government’s decisions can be overturned by Congress.
During the 1990s, Congress appointed a financial control board that effectively took over the economic management of the city, offering tax breaks to business, privatizing public services and encouraging gentrification.
Campaigners for statehood point out that the district has the highest rate of HIV infection in the United States – almost 10 times the national average – and that federal legislators have forbidden the city from spending money on needle-exchange programs that could inhibit the spread of the disease.
Life expectancy in DC is lower than in the 50 states and a 2006 Harvard study found that the city’s residents had the same chance of reaching old age as people living on the Gaza Strip.
Those outside the district point out that the federal government funds one-third of the city’s budget, suggesting that many of Washington’s problems are caused by poor administration at a local level.
Welcoming Thursday’s vote, Holmes Norton played down potential problems and disagreements ahead as she celebrated a breakthrough in a struggle that has already lasted more than 200 years.
“When this Bill becomes law shortly, it will mark the first time since the city was established that the Congress shall have conferred voting rights on the residents of the District of Columbia by act of Congress,” she said.
“The toughest part of this Bill was accomplished today in the Senate with a 61-vote victory.
“Yet, there were tough anti-home rule battles today, and we are ready for the tough battles ahead.”
The DC Voting Rights Act - 2009, 111th Congress
The DC House Voting Rights Act is bipartisan legislation that would bring congressional voting representation to DC residents for the first time ever.
On Tuesday, January 6, 2009, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), introduced the DC House Voting Rights Act (H.R. 157) in the House by Representatives (PDF 40 kb). Also on the same day, Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) introduced the DC House Voting Rights Act (S.160) in the Senate (PDF 41 kb). The language of the bill in the House is the same as the legislation that passed in the 110th Congress, and the language of the bill in the Senate is the same as the bill that made it to the Senate floor in the 110th Congress.
On Thursday, February 26, 2009, the U.S. Senate passed the DC House Voting Rights Act (S.160) in a vote of 61-37 (Senate Roll Call Vote #73). The bill was amended to include changes to DC gun laws, an amendment offered by Senator John Ensign (R-NV). The gun amendment to the bill was approved in a vote of 62-36 (Senate Roll Call Vote #72).
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) has announced that the House will vote on the bill during the week of March 2, 2009.
In the 110th Congress on April 19, 2007, the DC Voting Rights Act (H.R. 1905) passed the House of Representatives 241-177(House Roll Call Vote #231). This was the first time in a generation that the House has passed a bill to bring voting representation to the nearly 600,000 Americans living in the nation's capital. On September 18, 2007, although a majority of the Senate voted to move the bill to a final vote, 57-42 (Senate Roll Call Vote #339), a minority of Senators led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) were able to maintain a filibuster.
Take Action and See What Others Are Doing
This is the time to win and action on this monumental step toward full democracy for the District is happening at lightning speed. Check this Web page for updates and actions you can take to demand the vote for DC residents!
- DC Vote's Open Letter to President Obama, January 2009
Fast Facts on the DC Voting Rights Act
What Does It Do?
- The bill permanently expands the number of members of the House of Representatives from 435 to 437 seats.
- DC residents would have their first-ever voting member of the House of Representatives. The DC Delegate position would be eliminated.
- It also adds a seat to the next state in line to gain a Representative based on U.S. Census numbers. Currently that state is Utah.
What's Next
- DC Vote is already working closely with members of Congress, committee staff, local elected officials and coalition partners to bring the DC Voting Rights Act to a swift vote in the House and the Senate and bring it to President Obama's desk for his signature.
With 61 yea votes, the Senate gave final approval yesterday to the D.C. Voting Rights Act of 2009, and House Democratic leadership has indicated it plans to take up the bill by the middle of next week.
The most pivotal moment in the bill's outcome this year came Tuesday when the Senate voted 62-34 in a procedural move to consider the bill, which would permanently increase the number of members in the House of Representatives from 435 to 437 -- adding a new congressional district in D.C. and Utah. That vote moved the legislation beyond its end point in the previous session of Congress, when it fell three votes shy of the 60 votes needed for Senate consideration.
In Pictures: Which Small State Pays the Highest Taxes?
In Pictures: Which States Pay the Most for Their Representation?
"I feel like doing something very un-senatorial, which is to simply say: Yes!" Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) said, with a pump of the fist, at a press conference following yesterday's vote. "The truth is, this is a victory for America because this vote today is a significant step forward in closing the gap that exists between the ideals on which this country was founded and the reality as experienced by the 600,000 people that happen to live in our nation's capital."
The District gained the right to vote in presidential elections in 1961 with the ratification of the 23rd Amendment, which granted D.C. the same number of electors as the least populous state. Since 1971, the District has had a delegate to the House of Representatives, one who can debate, introduce bills and vote in committee, but has no voting authority when bills come to the House floor. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D), whom her colleagues refer to as "Congresswoman," has represented D.C. since being elected in 1990.
Without a court challenge -- which many believe is unavoidable, though it's unclear who will bring forth a lawsuit -- the law would become effective for the next congressional elections in 2010. D.C. would be granted one House district (a number that by law would not be allowed to increase), though it would not be treated as a state for the purposes of representation in the Senate. Depending on the outcome of the 2010 Census and reapportionment, Utah -- which was next in line to gain a House district following the 2000 Census -- theoretically could lose its new seat.
The debate on the Senate floor centered primarily on whether it's constitutional for Congress to give voting representation to a non-state. Opinions on the issue vary, especially regarding the fact that D.C. is not a state. Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution was recited countless times on the Senate floor by Republican opponents, and opponents in the House will likely do the same next week as well. It states: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states."
Proponents, however, note that the District is treated as a state in certain situations, such as with regard to interstate commerce, federal taxation and presidential elections.
"I want to remind my colleagues that while political winds may change, the plain text of the Constitution does not change. The Constitution says that only states may have representation," Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) stated Wednesday on the Senate floor.
While Sessions centered his argument on the Constitution, he indicated other gripes as well. Sessions noted the number of jobs the federal government offers in the nation's capital and said he wished those jobs existed in Birmingham -- though he failed to mention that many of these jobs are filled by residents of Maryland and Virginia.
"I'm just saying, I don't believe the District of Columbia is being abused," he said. "In fact they're doing pretty well with taxpayers' money all-in-all."
Federal taxes is an issue many proponents of the bill cite, including on the District's widely-known license plates, which read: "Taxation Without Representation." Despite having a population greater than only Wyoming, D.C. pays more in federal income taxes than any of the seven states that have one House member and a population of less than 1 million people, according to The Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan tax research group.
Opponents, however, note that the District in turn gets more federal dollars back per dollar paid in federal income taxes than any state -- though many of those dollars go to federal buildings.
While some opponents of the bill have also argued that the District is represented by all members of Congress -- 535, for now -- others submit that the nearly 600,000 American citizens living in D.C. do deserve their own voice in the law-making body. These opponents feel, however, that it must be done through a constitutional amendment -- not legislatively.
Despite voting against a similar bill in 2007, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) voted Tuesday to consider it, though she quickly indicated she did so only to allow debate -- not because she's in favor of it. From the Senate floor Wednesday, Murkowski said she voted "to allow this issue that is so important to some 600,000 people, that we give them this debate. I represent a state of just a little over 600,000. I can only imagine."
Murkowski said she planned to introduce a constitutional amendment -- separate from the current bill --that would give D.C. residents representation in Congress. Such a move has been done more than 150 times since the late 1880s, according to the Congressional Research Service. In 1978, the House and Senate approved an amendment, but only 16 states voted to ratify it -- 22 less than the three-fourths needed.
In a clear sign of how decisive the debate was, two allies in the 2008 presidential campaign were pitted squarely against each other. Lieberman was outspoken in his support for John McCain in 2008, though since coming back to Congress the two have been on opposite sides of major legislation, including the economic stimulus package.
McCain has been an ardent opponent of giving D.C. a full-voting House member, and he raised a point of order Wednesday questioning the bill's constitutionality. Lieberman replied that constitutionality was ultimately the Supreme Court's decision, and McCain's point of order was not agreed to by the Senate.
Lieberman spokesperson Leslie Phillips maintains that "there is no rift" between the two. "The two Senators are close friends who happen to disagree on providing voting rights to the citizens of the District of Columbia," Phillips told Real Clear Politics.
Along with McCain's constitutional point of order, Senate opponents also introduced myriad amendments to the bill. These amendments ranged from prohibiting the Fairness Doctrine, giving non-federal land within the District's borders back to Maryland, and what Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) titled the "Second Amendment Enforcement Act," which would legalize firearms in the District.
Shortly before the final vote took place yesterday afternoon, Lieberman made one final pitch to those who feel the bill is unconstitutional. He noted one provision within the legislation that calls for expedited judicial review.
"No one knowingly votes for something they think is unconstitutional," said Lieberman. "And yet there are so many times here where we've got to acknowledge as powerful as this great deliberative body may be we're not the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality. That privilege, power was given to the judicial branch of our government."
The Senate vote was only the first step in the bill moving through the legislative process. The House, which easily passed similar legislation in 2007, will likely follow the Senate in approving its version of the bill by the end of next week. A House and Senate conference will then be called to hash out any differences before a final bill is voted on by both chambers. Should that happen, President Obama is expected to sign it into law.
Senate Passes D.C. Voting Rights Bill Despite Amendment Repealing Gun Laws | Kris Alingod - AHN Contributor
Washington, D.C. (AHN) - The Senate approved a bill on Thursday giving the District of Columbia its first full voting member in the House. The measure, which still needs to be passed by the House before becoming law, has prompted concerns due a provision repealing the D.C. gun ban.
Lawmakers voted 61-37 to approve the measure, with all "nay" votes coming from Republicans except two Democrats, Sens. Max Baucus (D-MT) and Roberty Byrd (D-WV).
The bill gives Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) full voting rights in the House. Norton is one of several delegates, including those from the U.S. territories of American Samoa and Guam, who serve and vote in committees and deliver speeches on the floor but are not allowed to participate on final votes passing legislation.
The measure increases the number of House members by two to 437 members. Apart from D.C., Utah also gets an additional representative based on the 2000 Census. But the seat will only belong to Utah until 2011, when the Census again decides which state needs more representation.
The bill was passed despite concerns about an attached amendment from Sen. John Ensign (R-NV)to "restore Second Amendment rights" in D.C. The measure to repeal gun laws in the nation's capital passed by a vote of 62-36, with only one Republican, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), voting against it.
During remarks on the floor, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), called the amendment "irresponsible."
"It will endanger the citizens of the District, the Government employees who work here, our elected officials, and those who visit this great American Capitol," she said. "I am prepared to wage the assault weapons battle again and intend to do so. I have been quiet about this because there are many other pressing needs of this nation. But with the help of the President, the administration, and the people of this great country, we do need to fight back against these kinds of amendments."
But Norton celebrated with the Congressional Black Caucus the Senate's passing of the bill, even with the amendment.
"The Congressional Black Caucus, whose members have felt the sting of delayed freedom and equality, were the earliest and the most uncompromising proponents of our cause," Norton said in a statement. "The Caucus remains in the vanguard with Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers, now in the process of leading the bill to the House Floor, Rep. G. K. Butterfield, who has already given the bill a heavy lift for today's victory on the Senate Floor."
Caucus chair Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) also said in a statement the vote was "an important step toward erasing the second-class status of American citizens living in our nation's capitol."
She added, "The citizens of Washington D.C. pay taxes yet have no representation when it comes to the raising or spending of their tax dollars-this is fundamentally unjust."
D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty called the bill "a historic breakthrough in the District of Columbia's 200-year-old fight for full voting rights" and said that his administration will continue to work with congressional leaders "to ensure the bill reflects the priorities of District residents and is passed in final form as swiftly as humanly possible."
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) has said his chamber will take up the bill as early as Wednesday next week. After the House passes its version of the measure, a conference committee composed of congressional leaders will reconcile differences in the House and Senate legislation. A final version will then be sent to the White House to be signed into law.
Reid joins Pelosi in opposing weapons ban revival
The Hill - Washington,DC,USA
will join House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in opposing any effort to revive the 1994 assault-weapons ban, putting them on the opposite side of the ...See all stories on this topic
Pelosi on the Assault Weapons Ban
By MD Creekmore
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tossed cold water on the prospect of reinstating the assault weapons ban, highlighting Democrats’ reluctance to take on gun issues. Attorney General Eric Holder raised the prospect Wednesday that the ...
The Survivalist Blog - http://thesurvivalistblog.blogspot.com/
GUNS, MURDERS, AND THE CONSTITUTION
A Realistic Assessment of Gun Control
By Don B. Kates, Jr.
http://porcupinenine.blogspot.com/2005/07/addressing-americas-murder-rate.html
| | | | |
http://therighttokeepandbeararms.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment