courtesy-_1

“Like his favorite presidential candidate, Donald Trump, [Republican Congressman Dave Brat of Virginia] sees any limited, reasonable restriction on immediate access to guns, even to prevent potential murderers or terrorists from gaining access to weapons, as a violation of ‘our fundamental right to keep and bear arms’. Do Dave and Donald really believe that the drafters of the Second Amendment meant it to be a guarantee that criminals or the mentally ill could get weapons or that the United States must commit suicide by allowing access to weapons to potential terrorists?” – Bert Berlin in Dave Brat: Extreme on Guns [via bluevirginia.com]

bfg-long-logo-blue-jpg-220x39

Recommended For You

91 Responses to Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: Meet the Second Amendment Strawman

  1. Gee, if only there was a 100% proven way to stop Islamic terrorism… Oh, wait, there is. Ban Islam and either execute or deport the followers of that vile insurgency.

      • Baby steps bro, baby steps. First remove Islam from North America, then Europe. After that, nuke what’s left.

        • wow you are incredibly stupid.

          Robert, you need to call this guy out. ya’ know because basically he is a nazi. what you are proposing is the EXACT same thing Hitler did.

        • Its amazing TAG lets this obviously horrendous commentary get posted regularly but removes other posts as “FLAME DELETED” for much, much lighter offenses.

        • “Judaism is a religion AND a race.”

          So what race was Jesus? I seem to recall something about him being a Jew.

        • That’s a good question. Given where he was born, he was probably Jewish, but the Roman occupation of the region and the numerous wars that preceded it make that a very interesting topic of discussion.

        • Just struck me, he also was not Christian, either, of any specific (Baptist, Catholic, etc), because that cult was not invented yet, either! Can anyone speak to Hindu? Cuz we are running out of non-jew possibilities.

    • the best we can really do regarding Islam is educate people. to do that, you must first educate yourself, and learn the art of education. both of these goals require the expenditure of energy or time that could be spent watching TV. I don’t expect much progress in this matter.

      along the same lines, banning gangs would solve more problems than banning guns, but it can’t be done. a person with practical problem solving skills would look into who was holding the gun that did the deed, and if there are many, what characteristics do they have in common? focus on the part of the equation where decisions are made, not the implement the decision maker uses.

      common sense and practical thought processes are contrary to the agenda of populist politicians and wlll never be deployed to deal with the root cause of the problem.

        • FLAME DELETED

          Your discriminatory BS is the kind of crap that feeds the anti-2nd Amendment people’s claims that we are a bunch of ignorant racists, directly contradicts our founding principles, FLAME DELETED

        • Run off to your safe space. You can’t be “racist” against Islam any more than you can be “racist” against communism.

        • My mild “flame” has been deleted for calling out someone calling for the extermination of an entire religious group but his post still stands? WTF? Please explain your choice here publicly for all to understand TAGs stance on “flaming.”

        • Hellfromillinois,

          Might I suggest that if you disagree with a comment you refute it – with ideas – rather than drop ad hominems. I agree some ideas don’t meet a moral standard on any terms, but removing a post because you don’t like the idea behind it is counter productive to mankind. Refute it.

        • I simply made a “Hillary for Prison” type joke at the beginning and at the end mentioned my hopes for his fate in the case he ever acted on his supposed convictions which btw did not call for his immediate demise. Both of my comments are clearly far less aggressive and offensive than calling for killing millions of people and not irrelevant personal attacks.

        • Islam teaches its followers that they must kill everyone in *all* other religions, plus those with no religion at all. His calling for killing all muslims, under those circumstances, seems eminently reasonable. What’s your problem with it?

        • First of all, there are multiple interpretations of the Koran and multiple Muslim sects just like there are within the Christian community. Many disavow religious violence, but both religions have a long history of using violence. The Bible also calls for killing people using a variety of means for reasons most alive today would be abhorred by, but like most Muslims, Christians generally choose to focus on the love thy neighbor bit though some get pretty bend

          Second, he claims to want to burn heretics. By most definitions this would include people of Christian persuasions different than his own, atheists and other non-believers, and people from every conflicting religious group.

          So I see nothing to like about what he said other than that he almost certainly will never fall through with the violent actions he says he will commit here regularly.

          By your “their book says they should kill me, so I should kill them” logic, wouldn’t you have to argue anyone of a different religious faith than pwrserge would now be justified in killing him? I think they wouldn’t just as they should not be attacked by him without just cause such as an imminent credible threat.

          You can rail on and on against ISIS and what not all you want. They are an obvious threat, but leave everyday Muslims from around the world alone. All that I have met have been among the most respectable and kind people.

        • OK, in the interest of brevity I did not include that Islam also teaches its followers to lie about their intentions in order to achieve the murder of all other people on the planet. You can apply that concept in about 3-4 different places to your response above, leaving us, again, needing to kill all muslims in self-defense. Your assertion that such an idea is irrational, seems irrational.

    • Not surprisingly, Berlin is a liberal who supports Bart’s opponent in the upcoming election. And not surprisingly, she’s a lawyer who gives lip service to the Second Amendment while promising to push for ‘reasonable’ restrictions on gun ownership. She also pledges to ‘make Congress work again’ by not opposing future spending bills. You get the idea – another typical big government liberal who believes in a nanny state much more than she believes in individual liberty.

      • I do not oppose future spending bills – so long as they are paid for in actual cash, not promises that our grandchildren will have to pay for.

    • Stop with the religious discrimination already. Repatriate or retire all 3rd and 2nd world squatters regardless of race or religion.

      • Islam is not a religion. It’s a treasonous ideology with religious components. It doesn’t have the same principle of separation of church and state power that modern Christianity does. Islam is a religion in the same way that Communism is an economic system, it’s not an argument. The 1st amendment does not apply to Islam because it strays outside what are protected religious rights.

        • “Render onto Cesar what is Cesar’s.” Ring any bells? There is no equivalent in Islam. Islam demands total political control.

        • Mack Bolan’s comment had nothing to do with race or religion. His point is that you, as an immigrant, need to get out of his country. His point is that you aren’t an American, and you don’t belong here.
          Based on your comments about murdering about a billion people in the world, I’d have to agree. (Which is a rare thing for me to do with Mack.)
          You still haven’t figured out what liberty means.

        • Yeah… If you think allowing an existential threat to humanity to exist without challenge is “liberty” then you clearly haven’t been paying attention. The beauty of Islam not being a race is that, in theory, we can eliminate it without having to kill ANYONE. (It’s not going to happen, but its at least possible.) No argument for “liberty” can be used to defend an ideology that inherently rejects the idea of human decency.

        • Pwrserge, your argument is based on the notion that all people who claim to be Muslims seek to destroy liberty, or are somehow fundamentally evil. It is demonstrably false, demonstrably false in the US and even more so in southwest Asia, where there are Muslims fighting Muslims to protect Christians. If you can’t see that, you are delusional.

        • The argument is that they are either bad people or bad muslims. The core tenets of their beliefs do not allow any other option.

        • jwtaylor he’s a pog, what can we do about it? It’s always the loud mouths who are pogs. Can talk trash online but when the time came to sack up he played it safe, while getting to run around wearing a uniform.

        • Islam was created by men in order to control and enslave other men, just exactly like every other “religion”, your attempting to find imagined differences between Islam and “modern Christianity” or whatever silliness, is really working to slam your head farther into the sand.

      • “One man’s religion is another man’s belly laugh.” – Robert A. Heinlein

        In the case of Islam/Mohamedism ain’t a lot of folks laughing.

    • “Gee, if only there was a 100% proven way to stop gun violence… Oh, wait, there is. Ban scary black rifles and arrest or otherwise intimidate the followers of that vile insurgency.”

      We get it. Islam is bad. Well, not all followers of Islam are bad. But even a few are bad enough that we should get annihilate every member of that entire race, right?

      Man, Serge… I usually agree with you, but sometimes I don’t think you’re listening to the words coming out of your mouth. You should carry a tape recorder around for a day and then, at the end of the day, play it back and listen to how you sound.

      • If the west was not as secular as it is, Christianity would be (and has been in the past) just as bad if not worse than modern Islam.

        • Christianity improved far before secularism became a thing. It was called the Protestant Reformation. Unfortunately, such a reformation is practically impossible with Islam.

        • You do know that the reformation also set off a long and very bloody series of Christian vs. Christian wars across Europe and also helped lead to Christian settlements in North and South American that killed millions of people right?

        • Yeah… Omelets and eggs come to mind. You can’t just radically change the basis of an entire religion without people winding up dead. The point is that middle ages Christianity does not exist anymore, the same cannot be said for Islam. That’s the problem.

        • Judaism has been proven through DNA testing to be an actual race. There are some Jews just by religious conversion, but there are many non practicing racial Jews. The argument that Islam is not a religion so doesn’t get constitutional protection is a difficult one to prove. What is a religion?

        • Your call for burning “heretics” seems to suggest violent Christianity is alive and well.

        • “The point is that middle ages Christianity does not exist anymore”-
          It absolutely does. There are small Catholic and Protestant Christian sects that follow an interpretation that has not changed in 500 years all over the world, including the US.
          Elsewhere in the world, there are much larger organized Christian religions that espouse the same things. The Lord’s Resistance Army is the first to come to mind.
          You act as if the Christian and Muslim religions are somehow solid blocks of people with the same beliefs, or that these blocks somehow follow a linear progression. For both belief systems, this just isn’t the case.

        • @NorincoJay

          It’s not that it’s not a religion, it’s that the religious aspects of Islam do not serve to grant 1st amendment protections to the rest. Ask the Mormons circa 1850 or so.

        • So the issue is the religious aspects of Islam is too intertwined with non-democratic and non-religious acts as to be separated? I worked with a half dozen Bosnian Muslims a while back. They considered themselves Moslem, but they didn’t pray to Mecca five times a day. They drank alcohol and their woman worked, drove cars and dressed western. They didn’t eat pork, but besides that you wouldn’t know.

          In my opinion it’s religious fundamentalism that is a problem with all religions. The books were written by men and should be viewed as such. Not as a godly manual, but as a human interpretation which is open error. Devout religious people are difficult to understand no matter what religion they are devoutly serving.

        • NorincoJay:

          I have a friend who is somewhat similar. He eventually left Islam wholesale.

          You see, his family is from Saudi but he was born in the US. He used to go back and visit Saudi twice a year. When his family found out he was drinking alcohol the family in the US wanted to intervene with what you might call an attempt to force an “religious awakening”. His family in Saudi wanted him flogged. As things deteriorated and he argued with his US based family about the horrible shit he heard in EVERY mosque he attended in Saudi. He eventually decided to commit apostasy (leave Islam).

          Now his entire extended family wants him dead. Some of his US family wants him seriously harmed but not killed outright. The rest won’t talk to him for fear that they’ll be harmed if anyone else in the family finds out they were even talking to him.

          Granted, that’s one guy, but if you sit down and discuss Islam with him for 30 minutes over beers, you’ll come to the conclusion that while not all Muslims are evil, at it’s root, Islam most assuredly is quite evil. He’s quite well versed on the topic because he was a Muslim for 27 years.

          Simply put: actual Islam, and even the vast majority of mainstream Islamic thought are not compatible with the Western way of thinking. Other than the Muslims In Name Only (the ones you met), these groups will continue to breed terrorism and hate until the either evolve or cease to exist. Their way of thinking is very simply that we are evil and must submit or die.

          Non-Muslims can’t blather all they want. I’ll take the word of the apostate over them any day of the week. Ditto anyone who supports the hijab or any of that other bullshit. They lie to infidels, as they are commanded to do. When it comes to what self-professed Muslims say, for the most part, trust it not sir; it will prove a snare to your feet.

        • “Ask the Mormons circa 1850 or so.”

          Huh? Wasn’t that about the time when the US government violated the first Amendment by sending armed soldiers to convert or kill Mormons who claimed the religious right to multiple (underage) wives? Fat lot of good constitutional prohibitions did them! But what did that have to do with muslims? I’m missing the reference.

  2. Do Dave and Donald really believe that the drafters of the Second Amendment meant it to be a guarantee that criminals or the mentally ill could get weapons…

    Does Bert really believe that the founding fathers meant the government to be able to restrict people’s rights based only on the suspicion that they might fall into a certain, undesirable category?

  3. Does this guy really believe we can stop terrorists from getting the tools of their trade? Why is it suicide to prevent disarmament instead of suicide to disarm?

    I honestly can’t tell if these people believe this garbage or if they just refuse to even consider the alternative.

    • What you’ve got is two classes of these losers. The elitists and their useful tools.

      The tools are sheeple, easily led around by their noses and manipulated by their emotions. They never look too deeply at an argument, and like Pavlov’s dog, they tend to react viscerally whenever the subject of their emotional conditioning is brought before them.

      This class of people tends to be the average man-in-the-crowd at a lot of gun-control events. And most of these people stay this way until they’re groomed and brought into the ‘elite’ class, usually upon ascending to the level of highly-paid actor, newspaper-troll, media personality, or politician.

      Like Scientologists who’ve reached the inner-circle of the faith, they’re finally clued in that all their deeply cherished beliefs are baloney, but they’re so deep into it, they can’t back out, or they’ll look like the fools and hypocrites that they are.

      So they double down, swallow their anger at being duped, and follow all those who went before. And eventually they learn that being elite has its perks because they get to enjoy the very thing that they have so long railed against. And nobody calls them on it.

      Well almost nobody.

      • “Like Scientologists who’ve reached the inner-circle of the faith, they’re finally clued in that all their deeply cherished beliefs are baloney, but they’re so deep into it, they can’t back out, or they’ll look like the fools and hypocrites that they are.”

        Not far from where I am right now is Scientology central. You have managed to hit it right on the head…

      • I’d argue the elites break down into two groups.

        The group you described and a far more nefarious group.

        I fully believe that there are a pretty good group of hardcore statists within the elites of the gun control community. The sort of people who want a “revolution” where they control all the guns and purge their political opposition from existence.

        I have no doubt that someone like Nancy Pelosi would have no problem having her minions machine gun people by the truckload for the thought crime of disagreeing with her/her vision for utopia.

    • I knew a very intelligent highly educated woman who sincerely believes that criminals do crimes to buy shoes and medicine for their babies.

      in my considerable experience with criminals, none of them acknowledge their babies. the standard response to an accusation of fatherhood is to hold up a phone book and announce that it is a partial list of possible candidates.

      faulty premises must result in faulty conclusions. the misguided among us are incapable of seeing that their premises are faulty.

      • The fact that i can buy a pair of tennis shoes at walmart for $8 seems to remove her from the “highly intelligent” category.

  4. Is Dave really suggesting that we can take no action against suspected terrorists until they attempt to carry out their plot and are then tried and convicted?

    Actually, Bert Berlin, that is EXACTLY what Dave is suggesting.

    I believe it is codified as part of the 5th Amendment, to whit:

    No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

    Liberty equals Rights. ‘The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed’.

    Bert, your Freedom of Speech’ is enumerated and protected by the 1st Amendment, and enforced by the 2nd Amendment. If I were you, I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss it and put additional burdens that impact only the law-abiding.

    • We don’t even need to wait for them to try to commit the act, as “Conspiracy to Crime” is also a crime! The key is that we still need proof that someone is actively pursuing a crime, not mere suspicion.

    • Using Pre-Crime standards would mean you, me, and everyone else should report to the nearest detainment center for summary execution.

      Well, not execution, reeducation camps most likely.

      But still…. Pre-Crime standards for the proles!

  5. The insidious logic that if you remove weapons from terrorist they no longer become a threat is at best naive and worst if this is the best an educated mind can muster.

    Until you live with them you have no idea.

  6. “Do Dave and Donald really believe that the drafters of the Second Amendment meant it to be a guarantee that criminals or the mentally ill could get weapons … ?” – Bert Berlin

    No, not at all. And that is why we do not allow people in prisons and mental hospitals to acquire or possess firearms.

    • “Do Dave and Donald really believe that the drafters of the Second Amendment meant it to be a guarantee that criminals or the mentally ill could get weapons … ?”

      YES, ABSOLUTELY!

      1. In the first place, the Second Amendment was never intended to guarantee that anyone could get arms (not weapons), it was meant to prohibit the government from infringing on their natural, civil and CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED right to keep and bear arms. Getting those arms was your own problem.

      2. In the second place, to a tyrannical government intent on denying the natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, everyone opposed to that government is by definition a criminal and/or mentally ill. That is the PRIMARY reason why it says “.. the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

      3. The problem of actual criminals or mentally ill (if they are dangerously mentally ill) people obtaining weapons is addressed by the fact that EVERYONE has the right to keep and bear arms and those of us who are not crazy and/or criminals vastly outnumber those who are. If such a system were allowed to function as intended you would have to be crazy to be a criminal! And the number of mentally ill people who are actually a danger to anyone but themselves is pretty damned small, armed or not.

  7. “Do Dave and Donald really believe that … the United States must commit suicide by allowing access to weapons to potential terrorists?” – Bert Berlin

    Does Bert Berlin really believe that the United States must commit suicide by allowing government to deny human rights without first convicting someone in front of a jury of their peers in a court of law?

    • Even following arrest and conviction the government cannot DENY human rights. The best they can do is attempt to severely restrict your exercise of certain natural rights while you are in custody and/or incarcerated, and then attempt to continue restricting some rights after your release. To date their success at this has been spotty.

      • In my mind “severely restrict your exercise” is the same as “deny”.

        In all honesty, perfect logic kind of falls apart after one person attacks another. Suppose the attacker is righteously prosecuted and convicted in a court of law by a jury of their peers:

        (1) How can any prison sentence truly undo the harm inflicted upon the victim? The felon cannot give back any time that they stole from the victim. The felon cannot erase the memories and corresponding permanent emotional scars. The felon cannot undo any permanent physical injuries/scars.

        (2) How can any prison sentence truly compensate a victim’s suffering/losses? The felon sitting in prison does not go back in time and remove the pain that the victim suffered. If the felon caused financial loss, their time in prison does nothing to restore financial losses.

        (3) What does imprisonment represent? It certainly is not financial, physical, or emotional restitution as I illustrated above. Is it punishment? Does that mean the felon has no rights in prison? If another inmate attacks them, do they not have the right to defend themselves? If they have the right to defend themselves, why are they limited to using their hands and feet if their attacker is twice their size and strength? If we limit them to using only their hands and feet, then we are committing small/weak prisoners to a death sentence … which means they really do not have a right to life in prison. But how can that be when we say that felons do have a right to life?

        I could go on but you get the point. Logic and consistency cannot exist after a person has attacked someone and we righteously send them to prison. No matter what we do or how we try to define things, there will be logical/consistency failures because the attacker has operated outside the bounds of righteous behavior.

  8. First:yes. “…shall not be infringed” means exactly that.

    Second: define “reasonable”, and explain how such measures will prevent, constrain, or even merely hinder violent criminals and terrorists.

    • Oh, yeah, that second one is the rub. I understand we have over 20,000 gun laws in this country, and I bet in all of history they have not prevented or solved 1000 crimes. That was not the intent, the intent is to control.

  9. Nobody’s counting on anyone to “immediately” stop anyone, or help anyone, or protect anyone. We don’t even care if they blew_allof_virginia_toget their self-esteem_back.com

    If a person was being attacked, or on the verge of being attacked, and the response team couldn’t materialize before that person engaged in their own defense then they are an Fing hinderance.

    Gov’t/cops/even the blessed U.S. Military has not always proven to be effective at protecting themselves.

    HOWEVER, AGAIN, AND STILL, GUNS ARE PROTECTED BY THE SECOND AMENDMENT, SO THAT YOU CAN PROTECT YOURSELF FROM AHOLES IN “GOVERNMENT” (a/k/a your ahole neighbors who needed a job).
    WHEN YOU NEED THAT KIND OF HELP, IT IS HEINOUSLY WRONG TO THINK THOSE SAME GOV’T AHOLES ARE GOING TO GIVE YOU PERMISSION TO OBTAIN THE MEANS TO ERADICATE THEM AT THAT TIME.

    • Is it just me or not enough people are throwing the STFU flag at the anti-gunners.

      Ya know, even the Pope stuck a fork in female priests. It sucks to just lay it out there, but . . .

      • Now that you mention it, the historical record documents that many Popes have done much worse things to women (not recently, of course), not to mention what priests have done to young boys, than what has recently been reported as the horrifying acts of Donald Trump.

        And we really don’t want to discuss the Inquisition, also presided over by a Pope.

        • Not recently, that we know of …

          And I don’t recall that the president is even expected to be “holy”, whatever that means.

      • Right HCliffhanger, it’s not that any form of governance in the history of this planet was ever performed by robots, animals or aliens. People are not perfect. It doesn’t need to be repeated here that hanging the mantle of power on them fails to perfect them further.

        More to your point, I’ll match you on crazy perverts in other religions, the Catholic Church is actually relatively good at self-policing and while they often provide for too much ‘forgiveness’ that is a separate flaw to your point. For the record, THE OFFICE OF THE POPE IS A_L_W_A_Y_S SUSCEPTIBLE TO EXTERNAL HUMAN POWERS. When those powers cannot be counteracted those powers can negatively impact the OFFICE OF THE POPE, or the OFFICE OF ITS CLERGY but cannot effect CHURCH CATECHISM, OR THE “FAITH” OF ITS PEOPLE. Further
        WHEN IT IS FOUND THAT SUCH HUMAN FLAWS HAVE PERMANENTLY AFFECTED CHURCH DOCTRINE TO ITS DETRIMENT, THE CHURCH WILL BE REFRESHED LIKE ANY OTHER HIERARCHY.

        The Catholic Church’s problems don’t stem from Conservatives, however, they stem from your people Cliff.

        • Come to think about it. . . there’s another STFU flag that’s long overdue.

          It’s funny (not really, but) when gays and perverts say that they shouldn’t be considered a societal problem, then those gays and perverts go on to complain about the evils that gays and perverts with the Catholic Church have foisted upon history.

          STFU FLAG FLOWN.

  10. People like Bert Berlin have no concept of what it means to have Constitutionally protected rights. You cannot hop back and forth between Liberty and Totalitarianism just because freedom produces some results you don’t like. Dave Brat obviously gets it.

    None of us are happy when a mentally-ill person, or “Fill-in-the-Blank Terrorist” obtains a firearm and acts-out badly. The “iron pipeline” seems to keep the gangs and criminals well supplied with firearms and law enforcement is not stopping it.

    Bert Berlin wants to selectively persecute anyone and everyone on the suspicion they “might” act-out badly, but the Constitution guarantees everyone due process. We have already tolerated too many infringements and denials on our Second Amendment rights, once we tolerate infringement and denial of due process, we should expect other rights to be similarly affected.

    We have a modicum of Liberty that is still much greater than any other Country. We should never agree to reduce it further in trade for an illusion of better personal safety because the arbiter of that “personal safety” will be none other than the rights killing Government whose only real interest is maintaining its control over the individual. Government control over the individual is the antithesis of individual Liberty.

  11. Hmmm…I’ve had a similar “discussions” with my DoD employed Arabic speaking son about moos-lims and guns. And I quit talking about it as he is the father of my only grandkids. I am fairly close to serge in worldview but I believe they need Jesus Christ(or the opportunity to accept HIM) before we nuke them. And yes there are many half-azzed moderate “muslims”(SEE:most Nation of Islam adherents). Just like in the so-called Christian world. They are heretics and worthy of death according to vast #’s of orthodox mo-hamedens. I don’t have a solution-but we should vet the hell out of muslim “refugees”. Like none. Trump/PENCE 2016…and due process rules.

    • Add a family history of literally a dozen generations fighting muslim incursions into the Christian world, and you will have my exact world view. Go look up why the Kuban Cossack host was formed by the Russian Empire.

      • My ancestors on one side are from Austria and Germany. Grandpa was told all about the Sieges of Vienna as a kid by his native dad. 9/11 happening when it did wasn’t out of convenience. Hell, look at Belgrade. That city was assaulted by the Ottomans at least ten times across four centuries.

  12. That’s a fun game. Let me give it a try.

    “How long has Bert Berlin of blue virginia insisted that American citizen’s rights can be taken away without any due process, merely by one bureaucrat putting them on a secret terrorist watch list? How far would this extend? Does Berlin accept the consequences of such a position, namely, that Americans could be put in Guantanamo without any recourse to legal procedures?”

  13. As I have stated here before, once you allow the political class to redefine the language, all logic is irrelevant.

    With so much case law on the books, all that is needed is to find the proper interpretation of whatever it is that you want to enforce.

  14. Is the link in the article broken or is the (my) internet censoring the connection? I haven’t been able to connect to the article at all…. Maybe all the TTAG traffic broke them?

  15. Well Mr. Berlin would be well acquainted with straw men since he seems to be a scarecrow.
    (SING ALONG!)
    If he only had a brain…

  16. I have never heard or read such hate in my live as what I have read here. REMEMBER Sheeple, it was the Bush administration that went into the middle east based on a lie, now wake the frell up: The US of A destroyed over three countries, what the FUCK would you do if another country destroyed this country???

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *