Cruz: Obama & Clinton Ignore Radical Islam Instead Punish Citizens With Gun Control

By AWR Hawkins

Obama and Hillary
Obama and Hillary
AmmoLand Gun News
AmmoLand Gun News

Washington DC – -( During a post-debate interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper on December 15, Republican presidential hopeful Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) described how political correctness prejudices President Obama and Hillary Clinton against law-abiding American citizens.

Cruz pointed to Obama and Clinton’s immediate reactions to the San Bernardino attack as proof, explaining that both of them reacted to initial attack reports by calling for more gun control on law-abiding citizens before the San Bernardino attackers had even been found or identified.

On December 2, Breitbart News reported that Obama called for more gun control while the San Bernardino shooters were still at large and Clinton called for more gun control via Twitter while the hunt for the gunman and gunwoman was still underway.

Clinton tweeted, “I refuse to accept this as normal. We must take action to stop gun violence.”

Speaking to Tapper, Cruz said:

[Consider] Nidal Hasan. Now the Obama administration knew that Nidal Hasan was in contact with Anwar al Awlaki–a known radical Islamic cleric–they knew that he had inquired about the permissibility of waging jihad against American soldiers. Yet they did nothing, apparently because it was politically incorrect [to intervene]. And as a result, Nidal Hasan murdered [13] innocent souls [at Fort Hood].

This is the consistent problem of the Obama administration is their approach over and over again is to focus on law-abiding citizens. What did President Obama, what did Hillary Clinton say after San Bernardino? Let’s take away the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms of law-abiding citizens. That’s the wrong problem–we need to focus on the bad guys.

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter: @AWRHawkins.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
resistance is futile

If you let them pass any law they will twist it into something bad. Take Californias BFSC, it was voted in under the premise that it would be for life once passed. It was later invalidated and replaced with the HSC which expires every couple of years and this was done without a vote. They now put in another license requirement if you want to buy a rifle! They may start licensing ammo soon.


The liberal left (Democrats) only want gun control,on the way to eliminating all citizens from owning any firearms period.
So,if you give them any gun control measures,they will then say,well that didn’t work so,we as Americans have to do more.they will slowly eat away at the 2nd amendment,until it is watered down ,or gone altogether.This is the point we have to relay,to the public.


Hillary Clinton ignores your concerns, so ignore her at the voting booth.


Here is the thing, they know the government can’t just impliment a policy of gun confiscation. So they allow bad things to happen (Nidal) and then preach on how, “If guns were banned then this wouldn’t happen.” They figure it’s like the frog in the kettle principle, if they ban guns slowly and no one fights back enough to stop them. All gun owners need to ban together under one banner (2nd Amendment) and loundly say “No more, we will not comply.”

2War Abn Vet

It’s easier to completely control a populace, if you first disarm it. Every tyrant knows that.

Street Surivor

Bottom line. I will kill any one. Who tries to take my weapons.


So we should blame video cameras for videos too?

Implement registration/background checks for video cameras, stat!