Another Paranoid Obama Hater Goes Crazy
April 4th, 2009, 5:04 PM EDT
The Pittsburgh shooter who killed three police officers had lost his job and was afraid Obama was going to take his guns away. Twenty-three year old Richard Poplawski held police officers at bay with an assualt rifle and two other guns.
Poplawski feared “the Obama gun ban that’s on the way” and “didn’t like our rights being infringed upon,” said Edward Perkovic, his best friend.
[...]
Another longtime friend, Aaron Vire, said Poplawski feared that President Barack Obama was going to take away his rights, though he said he “wasn’t violently against Obama.”
Where does this paranoia come from?
I have a problem with alot of democrat ideas about gun laws. Canada’s system of a gun bank is ridiculous and I still want to be able to amount a gorilla war if government goes too far. It’s about resources and the ability to defend yourself. If our fore fathers had stupid laws like the ones you see mounting by extremme wackos now, the revolution would have never happened. It would have been Tianamin square of the 13 colonies. Extreme ideas will one day rip this country apart like any other civilization. Maybe we won’t be around to see it but rome wasn’t built in a day and it didn’t die in a day either.
April 4th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
“Where does this paranoia come from?”
You know the answer and are too afraid to say it.
It comes from the right wing radicals like Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh.
It comes from the fact that hearing my perspective is called ‘listening to fags talk’ and education about the law is called ‘nerd stuff.’
It’s all lies. everything he heard. It’s all lies pumped into his skull by hateful and ill-willed individuals.
How long do we let these people run free and pollute our minds? Call local stations and tell them you don’t want misinformation on the radio. Contact sites and tell them you don’t want misinformation on the internet.
The right wing doesn’t care. They could care less about anything but ratings and whipping peole up.
Then this happens.
willy Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
I’ll get right on that Eric. I think I will contact FOX tonight and tell them I don’t want Alan on because of all the mis-information he spews out.
I will write MSNBC and tell them to stop Olberman and Matthews to stop the misinformation they put out nightly. I will tell them to stop Maddow from spewing her misinformation. Then I will write The View and tell them the same thing. An on and on.
The ratings Eric mean that people watch/listen to these individuals. They are in agreement with them and they enjoy their programs.
Why do you give politicians a pass on misinformation. They do it with every other word that comes out of their pie hole. They are the ones who affect our daily lives. They are the ones who make our lives miserable with their overbearing laws and taxation and rules and regulations. They are the ones who are eroding our rights and liberties.
Call them Eric.
jasperjava Reply:
April 5th, 2009 at 3:19 am
THERE’S A HUGE DIFFERENCE.
Olbermann, Matthews, Maddow never advocate violence. The same cannot be said about right-wingers, who believe in shooting first and asking questions later. G. Gordon Liddy even advised his listeners to shoot federal officers in the head, because of the body armor. It sounds like this right-wing paranoid fascist gunman took his advice.
The Right is always ready and willing to use violence to advance their political views. That’s why thousands of people were needlessly killed in Iraq. That’s why the militia groups threaten to kill government leaders and officials. This is the same kind of paranoia and hatred that led to the Oklahoma City bombing.
The United States faces a greater threat from domestic right-wing terrorists than from the foreign variety.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 5th, 2009 at 3:30 am
JASPER,
Right-wing commentators advocate violence? Please identify sources that support your argument.
The Left is always willing to raise taxes to advance their political views. Seems like Obama is no different.
“right-wing terrorists”????? Sounds like you need professional help, wacko.
I’ve just put you in the same sheetpile as JERRYSROLLINBLOG. congratulations…you must be so proud of your hate-filled heart.
flap Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Give me a break, Eric, and Alan too if that’s what was being implied.
I concur with Willy…why didn’t we stop all the subversive and seditious stuff that occurred during the Bush administration?
This is a wacko: they are on both sides, despite how you libs like to pretend it’s all conservatives.
April 4th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
This is just another example of why we need tougher gun laws.
flap Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
You honestly think tougher gun laws would have prevented a wacko from obtaining guns?
Kregg Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
RC opined: This is just another example of why we need tougher gun laws.
K; For you, RC, I figure that almost anything would be an example of why we need tougher gun laws. However, for the rest of the country, simply enforcing the over 20,000 gun laws we ALREADY have would be sufficient.
Drk H Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Over 2 million gun owners did not hurt anyone today. I’m sorry for the police officers that have fallen, and condem this stupid kid. If you think it is only guns, you are wrong. If you believe it is people expressing their beliefs you are wrong. If you want to outlaw guns, like Mexico does. Then you will have a black markety like mexico does where a lot worse guns come in than what we have in the U.S. Or people will make bombs, you cannot take everything away. The real problem is the why. Why do people want to kill harmless people, they never met. Even the Terrorist, I can understand. They are totally worthless humans, but at least they have a belief that I understand an us or them attitude. But this, is a 15 min. of horrible fame of some sort that I don’t understand.
willy Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Private law abiding citizens use their right to own a gun to defend themselves roughly 2,000,000 times every year. That is 2,000,000 times a bad guy is either caught or running for his life and 2,000,000 times a life is saved by the right to own a gun and the right to defend oneself.
April 4th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
This is why there should be psychological testing the equal of anything police departments administer to recruits before we issue gun permits to anybody.
Everybody who knew this nut in Binghamton NY says they’re not surprised he went out and committed mass murder–AND YET NOBODY THOUGHT TO QUESTION WHETHER HIS GUN PERMITS SHOULD BE REVOKED!
That’s insanity.
And we’ve got the NRA and the rest of the rightwing republican subversives to thank for it.
flap Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
And we also need psychological testing of people who operate heavy machinery, parents (since children might grow up to be wackos), people who work in pharmacies, and on and on and on.
There’s NO WAY to prevent stuff like this. Impossible. We can try to lower the incidence, but it WILL happen. It has nothing to do with the NRA or the right-wing.
flap Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
I forgot psychological testing of left-wing radio hosts…
JUST KIDDING, ALAN! :D
April 4th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Alan asked: Where does this paranoia come from?
K: The dictionary defines the mental condition of paranoia as:
a mental condition characterized by delusions of persecution, unwarranted jealousy, or exaggerated self-importance, typically elaborated into an organized system.
It may be an aspect of chronic personality disorder, of drug abuse, or of a serious condition such as schizophrenia in which the person loses touch with reality.
K: In short, the guy had a mental condition. Sorry but such a condition does not have a party affiliation…
April 4th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
this is all coming from rightwing talk radio and foxnews..
they keep pounding and pounding with the same crap over and over about:
-liberal media
-acorn
-democrats
-liberals
-obama
-socialist
-communists
etc..
and this is the outcome.
April 4th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
I’m curious.. Which of the ‘20000 gun laws’ would have stopped this if it was properly implemented?
We have an absurdly high homicide rate involving guns in this country and need to stop pretending that the problem will be solved by more guns or ‘proper implementation of gun laws’.
What would happen if instead of banning guns, we just enacted a ban of all sales of ammunition in this country except to designated gun clubs where all such ammunition must not leave the building.
Wouldn’t that solve the problem of a ‘gun’ ban where ‘bad guys’ don’t give up their guns?
How can we reduce the homicide rate to something like other western nations and stop the senseless deaths? Or is the genie simply out of the bottle and never going to go back in?
Drk H Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Lee,
As I posted above. What would happen with a total gun ban. The shooting sprees that have happened in England, Canada, Australia and Mexico. Or it might be as bad as Mexico since the really bad guns in mexico will start coming up here. And or we can get rid of all guns, and people will start going thru the garden shed, kitchen etc. and making bombs to carry out these crazy things. It is not the insturment that is the problem.
Lee Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Drk,
What shooting spree in ‘England’!? The gun ban in England was enacted because of the Dunblane tragedy.. Help me out here and tell me how many gun deaths there have been since..
And tell me have you looked at the Homicide rates of Canada, Australia etc compared to us?
Kregg Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Lee asked: I’m curious.. Which of the ‘20000 gun laws’ would have stopped this if it was properly implemented?
K: How about psychological screening? More to the point, what additional gun law do you think would have stopped this massacre? Criminals don’t obey gun laws Lee.
L: We have an absurdly high homicide rate involving guns in this country and need to stop pretending that the problem will be solved by more guns or ‘proper implementation of gun laws’.
K: Whats absurd is that you think yet another gun law would be effective in stopping people like this. Criminals and nuts don’t obey gun laws…
L: What would happen if instead of banning guns, we just enacted a ban of all sales of ammunition in this country except to designated gun clubs where all such ammunition must not leave the building.
K: English style, huh? Crime rate went up 29% in England when criminals knew they would face no armed defense.
L: Wouldn’t that solve the problem of a ‘gun’ ban where ‘bad guys’ don’t give up their guns?
K: Except for the black market, reloads, stockpiles, etc… that would remain.
L; How can we reduce the homicide rate to something like other western nations and stop the senseless deaths? Or is the genie simply out of the bottle and never going to go back in?
K: Why don’t we encourage honest law-abiding citizens to arm themselves and protect themselves. IF this was done thered be an instant reduction in crime because criminals will stop their behavior if there is a real risk they will be wounded or killed.
April 4th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
A ban on all sales of ammo would not solve the problem of criminals obtaining ammo. The bad guys are bad guys because they don’t adhere to the laws. That is why they are called bad guys.
The prohibition on alcohol back in the day sure worked out well didn’t it? The ban on ammo and or guns would work out just as well. It would keep the law abiding citizen from the ability to defend oneself while the bad guys had the advantage of knowing his victim could not defend himself.
Drk H Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
We cannot stop the drugs and human trafficing coming in from mexico, why do you think guns and ammunition would not follow the same way. mexico is really scary right now. they are using lots of heavy full auto, grenades and rocket propelled grenades, coming from Russia, Africa, and surplus latin America inventories from the cold war, and all of the guerrilla wars of the last 40 years.
April 4th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Way to go Mr. Colmes. So typical of you Libs to use a tragic situation to further your own perverted political agenda. The blood of the tree slain officers isn’t even dry and you’re asking stupid and ridiculous and insensitive questions (even for a member of Liberal-land) as to “where does this paranoia come from.” Talking to you leftists is, in essence, the end of any rational dialogue!
TDro319 Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
“Talking to you leftists is, in essence, the end of any rational dialogue!”
So why waste your time by posting here?
willy Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Because he likes you TDRO. Why do you think I post here? You’re a great guy. Really.
April 4th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Gotta go. Have a great evening everyone. Even you Mr. Liberal=freedom.
April 4th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
So, let me get this straight, ALAN, and all of you who think the way ALAN does. A crime is committed and it’s automatically a partisan issue?
Donte Stallworth, an avid Obama supporter, mows down a pedestrian in his Bentley.
Where do these crazy anti-right-wing antics come from?
Fair is fair, right?
April 4th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Why does it never occur to you people that you can take care of yourselves? I don’t know how you stop people that what to senslessly hurt other people. But I do know how to stop somebody from hurting my or my family. Why I have a concealed permit. Why all the mass shootings always fail when they occur at a place where somebody is carring a weapon. Look at the church shooting a few years back. Look at the luby’s in Kileen. Look at all of the home invasions that are stopped by a homeowner with a weapon. Look at Joe King who shot the robbers in Houston. We have the means. It is not the inanimate object that is doing this.
Just remember talk to your kids. Teach them how to use guns responsibly, and that these types of people that do this are dispicable. We have to wage a war on this violence from the standpoint that it is not glamorous.
Maybe a good start would be to teach our kids to be self-reliant. That the world does not owe them anything, that when they have tough luck in life, they need to dig deep, maybe even gia forbid reach out to god for help. Here is your nanny state, and all you people want to do is baby them more, instead of letting them grow up.
April 4th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
It comes from Glenn Beck, Fox News, Sean Hannity, Rush etc.. etc… you well know that Alan.
Drk H Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Thats right Mike,,, always somebody elses fault.
Mike Beckham Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
The question was
“Where does this paranoia come from?”
I answered it. There is the source. When somebody is mentally unstable things like the War Bunker is not going to help and they aren’t in a state to see its just B.S.
Drk H Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
NO, that is not where it comes from.. It comes from the nanny state. Teaching our kids that everything should be handed to them on a plate, and if they don’t get it or have to work for it. Then the need to throw a tantrum and blame somebody else for it to get attention..
It does not come from people expressing free speech. We all hear things all of the time and have to learn to filter it the right way. so these people are missing something that should be commonplace in our society. Empathy with people. I have a whole list of other things that cause this paronia, and would be interested someday to discuss it. But that would be an immensly long discussion.
Kregg Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
paranoia is an abnormal mental state and is usually caused by being abnormal. ;-) What one DOES with that abnormal mental state results in shootings – or seeking help. To pick a few nuts that have killed and pretend they are from the mainstream is ignorance personified and not the least helpful in solving the problems of nuts getting guns…
Mike Beckham Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
How can it come from ‘Nanny State’ where countries with much larger Governments have tiny Gun related crimes compared to the U.S.
Ridiculous.
Kregg Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Mike said: It comes from Glenn Beck, Fox News, Sean Hannity, Rush etc.. etc… you well know that Alan.
K: A simple look at the federal homocide statistics from 1973 to 2005 will show that the gun related murder rate has come down since Beck, Fox, Hannity, and Rush came on the air. Chew on that little stat for a while… ;-)
Mike Beckham Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Beck scaring the shit out of people is not helping
Mike Beckham Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Beck scaring the cr*p out of people is not going to help people on the edge
Drk H Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Mike -
Then who are the left wingers responsible for Bill Ayers Noam Chomskiy, Saul Alinsky, Che Gueverra…
How about the FBI most wanted list of the Elf guys, who’s fault is their paranoia to blame on.
Who – maybe allan
Kregg Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Mike: Beck scaring the cr*p out of people is not going to help people on the edge..
K: Neither does too much sunlight, finding a fly in their orange juice, or breaking the laces on their tennies… You draw an incredulously tentative connection to Beck. Why wouldn’t Al Franken and his anger be just as dangerous. Why wouldn’t James Carville light his fire? Why wouldn’t any one of thousands of liberal triggers be just as dangerous to his psyche? The man was a nut. We let nuts run free until they do something to round them up over. This one did something really bad before we could round him up. The REAL question we ought to asking ourselves is why there were no armed citizens inside to stop this guy?
Um Cara Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Perhaps we should have better public mental health care, rather than more gun legislation?
(While I posed that as a question, it is actually my firm opinion)
Drk H Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Um Cara – I’m not opposed to that, but I worry the people that are sick do not seek out the treatment that would help them. I don’t know how you implement it. How easy is it to fake a mental test to cover up your true feelings.
Um Cara Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
How easy is it to fake a mental test to cover up your true feelings.
Well, I guess you are talking about after the fact, rather than before. To my understanding, in most states, and at the federal level, an ‘insanity defense’ would require one to really have no grasp on reality.
For example, if I thought I were protecting myself from alien invaders, who had descended upon my house in their spaceships with their laser guns, aided by demons raised from hell, in order to prevent me from spreading the truth about the conspiracy to blah… blah… blah…
When in reality I had shot my mailman
I would be found either ‘guilty but insane’ or ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’
And reasonably so. A person in such a state is differently culpable than a guy who robbed a liquor store and knowingly shot the owner and two customers of the liquor store.
The dude without the grasp on reality I mentioned before would have likely shown other problems of mental illness prior to his shooting the mailman. In most states, however, he would have had no recourse to mental health treatment prior (or after, for that matter) to his shooting the mailman.
Our current public mental health treatment is basically prison or living on the street.
We are a better society than that, we just aren’t currently showing it.
Kregg Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Um said: Our current public mental health treatment is basically prison or living on the street. We are a better society than that, we just aren’t currently showing it.
K: IMO our freedoms are what get in the way of a lot of good mental health. Lets call it forensic or preventative mental health. In CA the police can deprive you of your rights temporarily if you are ‘a danger to yourself or others’ and must remove you to a country run facility for evaluation. IF you do not meet certain very strict criteria for a continuation of your rights deprivations you must be released and your rights are restored. If a court finds you incompetent to manage your own affairs you can be conserved but again, in CA, an LPS (Lanterman/Petris) conservatorship over a person is hard get – again to protect the individual’s rights.
K: I’ll bet that neither of these guys was known in the MH system and I’ll bet they had no priors on their rap sheets that an instant check or other system would have flagged. There is no requirement for mandatory MH testing and I’ll bet neither of these guys would have considered voluntary treatment because paraniods don’t see themselves as peculiar.
K: All that to say that we walk a fine line between the freedoms we insist on and the dangers those freedoms bring with them. If we were able to involuntarily test/monitor/treat people we could take some potentially dangerous ones off the street but at what cost to our cherished freedom?
Um Cara Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Sure, it is that complicated in many cases. But even for folks who would voluntarily seek mental treatment, there are often no options (I have no doubt that California is probably one of the better states for public mental health care, however).
It would be nice if we at least consistently helped the folks who would like to avail themselves of mental health care.
Shouldn’t be too surprising that those who need it are among the least likely to have resources to pay for it privately, however.
Drk H Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Kregg-
Here Here. That is my conclusion. If we cannot catch these people early, then we should take the personal responsibility of taking care of ourselves.
April 4th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Lets look at some facts..
In England (where homeowners don’t have guns), if you are a victim of a crime involving a firearm, you have a 3% chance of being seriously injured or killed in the attack. ‘3%’ !
” A gun in the home increases the risk of homicide of a household member by 3 times and the risk of suicide by 5 times compared to homes where no gun is present”
“A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.” (Actually, I’ll be honest, I see this one has been disputed by the NRA but I haven’t seen their actual figures in the rebuttal).
“The use of a firearm to resist a violent assault actually increases the victim’s risk of injury and death(FE Zimring, Firearms, violence, and public policy, Scientific American, vol. 265, 1991, p. 48).”
Etc etc..
Guns are not a good thing. Unfortunately, I understand that for a large segment of our nation guns are viewed as something virtually sacred. As such, it doesn’t matter how many people die due to guns each year, the only solution for these folks is more guns and/or ‘better education’ etc. I don’t expect for one moment you will change your minds but I reserve the right to believe you are wrong in your views.
If you ever ask a good law enforcer what their most powerful weapon is, the answer should be their ‘voice’. I just don’t buy the self-defence idea as I think in most cases people who own them just put themselves and their family at much more risk if they have them than if not. The statistics seem to bear me out on this.
April 4th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Kregg -
I will not just buy into the fact that it is paranoia. We live in such a medicated nation these days. Nobody takes responsibilty for their actions. Everybody has an excuse due to a mental illness. I don’t buy it.
Kregg Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
DRK said: I will not just buy into the fact that it is paranoia. We live in such a medicated nation these days. Nobody takes responsibilty for their actions. Everybody has an excuse due to a mental illness. I don’t buy it.
K: You are correct in your statement, however, mental defects certainly exist and this guy seems to have had one. To treat these extreme cases as if they could happen to anyone who sniffs too much Hoppes #9 is stupid but its what Libs do every flippin’ time something like this happens. We all exhibit certain paranoias but they do not take over our minds because we have stable minds. There are some who do not. I do not excuse this guy at all and I hold him responsible for his actions…
Drk H Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Kregg- Here is what I don’t understand. If he was paronoid about O’ taking away his guns, why would he call innocent police, and just gun them down. Unless he wanted to take something that was important to him – O’ taking guns away, and using that as an excuse to get the attention he in a wacked out mental conclussion desired for some reason. Something else is wrong with these people that they want to go out of life by killing people, committing suicide, and getting on the national news.
Randy Weaver was paronoid and did what a logical (if there is such a thing) paronoid does, run off to the mountains to live a life off the grid.
Tim McVeigh was paranoid and did the hidoeus bombing of the FBI. But he still attacked those he thought who where coming after him.
So to me it has to be something else that is wrong with our society. We live in the information age now. We are bombarded with more stimuli than ever before, a lot of it having no mental health benifit what so ever. Everything is for immediate gratification, ever hear the new radio ads about serial texting. I don’t know. But I do know just calling him a right wing paronoid gun nut, will not eliminate the problem. If we get rid of guns, I believe the conditions causing this will just make them use some other means. We have already seen several instances of people using cars to murder as many people as they can.
Kregg Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
DRK said: Here is what I don’t understand. If he was paronoid about O’ taking away his guns, why would he call innocent police, and just gun them down. Unless he wanted to take something that was important to him – O’ taking guns away, and using that as an excuse to get the attention he in a wacked out mental conclussion desired for some reason.
K: I work with a segment of society that includes paranoids. Its not as if this guy is a happy-go-lucky guy except for his particular point of paranoia. They’re usually paranoid. Period. That paranoia plays out in various ways. This same guy may have been just as paranoid about a hand reaching up from the toilet bowl and grabbing his a** when he sat down. He may have had several – or no – other manifestations but he certainly wasn’t a ‘normal’ individual that simply had a little too many worry pills about guns. We’re not hearing the whole story about him.
April 4th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Mike Beckham-
The nanny state being ridiculus, requires a better point than the gun stats from other nations.
Ca – Had a guy behead another man on a bus, plus they had a school shooting here awhile ago.
England – Had a mass shooting here no long ago, Austrialia same thing
Mexico – 6600 gun related deaths this year alone.
The more foolish statement is labeling an inamimate object as evil, and that another persons expression of his god given right to freedom of speech is the cause of another persons doing abominal actions.
Mike Beckham Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
I am in Australia right now and that incident was one death. Gun laws don’t solve the problem – it doesn’t hurt though.
I’m not excusing anybodies actions, but you can’t deny the kind of talk on some of these shows is dangerous and some people can’t see that.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
I can, and will, deny the talk on some of these radion shows is dangerous. The “talk” isn’t dangerous. Using inciteful language such as “get your guns and kill cops” is dangerous. As far as I know…none of the commentators you listed (all right-wingers by the way…weird) use inciteful language.
Making this a partisan issue, instead of a social issue, is dangerous.
jasperjava Reply:
April 5th, 2009 at 3:30 am
For months the Right wing has been saying that Obama is a dangerous black-supremacist-socialist-liberal-communist-Arab-Muslim-pallin’ around with terrorists type of guy, who’s going to take away your guns, burn your Bibles, rape your women and institute Sharia law.
Don’t you think all the hate and ignorance being spewed by the likes of Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Liddy, Savage, Coulter, and the rest have contributed to the paranoia? Of course it has.
And that’s a social issue: ignorance and stupidity is due to poor education. The more educated people become, the less they listen to hateful right-wing demagogues.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 5th, 2009 at 3:34 am
JASPER,
And the likes of Matthews, Olbermann, Maddow, et all are SOOOO much better at speaking the truth? You’re outta your wacko left-wing mind.
You accuse right-wingers of cow-towing to right-wing talking points, but you just regurgitated a whole list of left-wing propaganda. So, who’s the mindless sheep in this conversation? I think we have a winner!!!! JASPER!!!!
Drk H Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Mike -
No I don’t see their talk as dangerous. All the names you included, have never tried to incite anybody to violence. Glenn Beck just last week made a long speech on his show, telling people He did not believe in voilence as an answer to the problems that are going on with goverment. If anybody is inciting to violence, it would be the newspapers recently printing letters to the editor saying AIG employees should be hung with piano wire. Or the moronic Rep that said they should commit suicide. Those are the morons that need to be thoughtful of what they are saying.
Kregg Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Mike: I am in Australia right now and that incident was one death. Gun laws don’t solve the problem – it doesn’t hurt though.
K: I DOES hurt. When you disarm the populace only the law-abiding will voluntarily do so. This leaves an incredible imbalance of power inasmuch as the criminals will not disarm. DUH! Australia’s crime rate has climbed in the wake of their gun grab…
April 4th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Lee,
I agree with Kregg.
Lee Reply:
April 5th, 2009 at 12:08 am
Um,
Except I wasn’t proposing ‘gun laws’ that was exactly my point on why I asked which of the supposed ‘20000 gun laws’ that aren’t implemented properly would have helped!
The only ‘gun law’ that would help is one that gets them out of this country or melted down into something actually useful and helpful to society.
There are numerous facts which detail why the self-defense myth is just that and that having a gun in your home makes you or your family more likely to get seriously hurt than if you didn’t and for every anecdote supplied by the NRA and gun ‘nuts’ about how someone was saved by a gun there are equally anecdotes where people had senseless deaths due to keeping guns in the home.
I haven’t found the corresponding stat for attacks here but in the UK if you are the victime of a crime with a firearm, you have a 3% chance of being seriously injured or killed when you don’t have a firearm.
The whole notion that you should ‘fight back’ at the first opportunity ‘and defend your family’ goes against everything that is taught about what to do if you are a victim of a crime. Let them take your possessions and money, those can be replaced. Lives cannot.
Unfortunately, as I questioned earlier, I think its too late to have any sensible mechanism to get rid of guns. However, I reserve the right to strongly disagree with those that think gun ownership is a good thing and/or helps to protect you and your family.
Um Cara Reply:
April 5th, 2009 at 12:20 am
Yea, I’m not really going to argue much of that. I only agreed with the one point Kregg made, and not so much as a response to you – more as a general statement.
Never owned a gun myself, nor do I plan to. I have learned proper way to handle a gun, some gun safety, etc… Done a bit of target shooting. But, I don’t really want to kill any kind of critter, humans included – so don’t want a gun. I also don’t live in fear that I would need one, odds are pretty long on that.
I live in a much more dangerous area than probably any other poster on this blog, and I would certainly not feel more safe w/ a gun in the house.
But I’m not a paranoid nut, either.
Drk H Reply:
April 5th, 2009 at 12:47 am
Lee,
Your solution for crime, just let them take what they want, is based on the naive belief that you cannot affect the outcome, so just hope for the best from the most vile in our society. Know why most experts believe successful use of weapons for self-defense are so small? That is because some 75% are estimated as not reported. Usually they are only reported when a person has been shot, or the police have been called prior to shooting or pulling the weapon. Usually, the weapon is pulled and it ends there. Why call the cops, when you pulled your gun, maybe you pointed it maybe you only showed it, and the threat went away.
Also the incidence of unintentional family shootings is higher than it should be because the methodology they use to get those stats is flawed.
If you choose not to have a gun, that is your choice and I respect that. But I see no reason for you to make me a victim of your good intentions. At my house I have used a pistol in self defense 2 times. Never fired a shot, called the cops on 1 of the occassions. My neighbor used a gun to catch 2 thieves that had broken into my house. Unfortunately living in the counry in South Texas with all the border in-security, being gone away from home 2-3 weeks at a time, makes my home a magnaet for criminals. Is that my fault. Should I move, and allow the criminals to win!
My son took his finacee to a concert in Dallas, accidently parked in the wrong part of town, many blocks away. So they should become victims, place theirselves at the mercy of thugs, just because he parked in the wrong place.
Are there any times you have ever wound up in a scary place by accident late at night? Maybe you are willing to resign yourself to being a victim, but how about the people that have to live there everyday, day in and day out. Why do you condem them to that fate. Why not allow those people the option to avail themselves of the very best self-defense technology.
Lee Reply:
April 5th, 2009 at 2:16 am
Drk,
“is based on the naive belief that you cannot affect the outcome,”
No, this is not it at all. You can affect the outcome but sadly its more likely to be for the worse. What it comes down to is are you willing to dramatically increase the risk of serious harm to you and your family in order to simply ‘fight back’ and not be the victim of a robbery/burglary.
Personally, my logic tells me its not worth it.
“That is because some 75% are estimated as not reported”
I don’t believe that as it doesn’t make any sense. If someone breaks into your home, most people would report it to the police. Where is your source for this please?
“makes my home a magnaet for criminals”
If I was you, and your home is such a ‘magnet’ I’d invest in security camera’s and a home security system thats easily visible. Still, let’s say you are an expert with guns, religiously keep them safe from kids and have no hesitation in using them when necessary. Maybe, if you are living in such a crime-ridden neighborhood there’s an argument for additional measures.
Unfortunately, there are too many people like my sister-in-law who lives alone with her two kids and on a whim bought a Glock. If an intruder was armed in her house, I have little doubt that given the fact she never practises and her nervous disposition, she and/or her kids are far more likely to come to harm than the intruder. And that’s the problem, for most its a false sense of security that does more harm than good (again borne out by the data).
“Are there any times you have ever wound up in a scary place by accident late at night?”
I’ve wound up in many scary places all over the world. I’ve never wished I had a gun or even a knife as I feel my best weapon of defense is my voice/brain and my legs (to run) and thats including the fact that I’ve studied martial arts.
Again, if I did have a gun/knife and drew it, I’m more likely to get seriously hurt so its certainly not about condemning someone to be a victim.
I’m thankful I’ve never been a victim of a violent crime in my life and I hope I never am.
April 4th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
There certainly are a lot of these right-wing nutjob rampages these days.
No matter how many times the Obama admin says they’re not planning on restoring the assault weapons ban, these wackos only believe what comes out of the mouths of druggie Limbaugh, alcoholic Beck, sexual abuser O’Reilly, and maniac Savage.
It’s time to bring back the nuthouses. And lock up the Beck fans and other right-winger fans before they shoot up the mall.
April 4th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
North Korea just launched…
April 4th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Um Cara-
Thank you for the time and effort you spent on your reply. I agree with you on the state of our mental health, but do not have an answer as to helping people in need. I keep rhinkinG about that guy in Canada, on a bus. He staps this poor man in his sleep, beheads him and starts to eat him before he is taken into custody. I just don’t see anyway we can protect ourselves from these people, except thru self-defense.
Um Cara Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Don’t get me wrong, if I were the mailman, I’d shoot the dude who thought I was an alien invader in a heartbeat (I’m a Texan too, after all). And if I were serving on a grand jury, hearing the case of the mailman who shot the crazy guy who was going to kill him, I’d no-bill the mailman.
I just wish we were doing more for that poor bastard prior to him getting to the point where he thinks the mailman is an alien. (And Texas is one of the WORST states in the union w/ regards to providing public mental health care).
So…
I’m not a fan of gun control
I am a fan of public health care, and mental disorders are a health care problem, not a ‘moral’ problem.
Drk H Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
I agree, just don’t know the answer on that one. I
Kregg Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Um said: I am a fan of public health care, and mental disorders are a health care problem, not a ‘moral’ problem.
K: Exactly. However, even if one has a ‘mental disorder’ it can be near impossible to predetermine which will become dangerous. Add to that disorders that are not ‘mental’ but simply biological – depression and hormone issues being a couple of them and you begin to see that you can’t classify certain diagnoses as being ‘potentially dangerous’ while others are ‘benign’ with any degree of certainty.
K: We readily accept the risk of malcontents and mental defectives in our society because we are loathe to arbitrarily restrict the freedoms we love. However, it is incumbent upon us to individually protect ourselves from such occurrences as happened this week. Arming ourselves against such a possibility is simple common sense and I’d certainly make an argument that it is negligent not to do so.
Um Cara Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
I just replied to similar logic…
Fine and dandy argument for those who do not wish treatment, but we are letting down more than just those who do not voluntarily seek treatment.
This is a state by state thing, I bet California is fairly progressive with their public offerings of mental health care. Not so in Texas or many other states, however.
I don’t think just wait till they get out of line so we can shoot them is good mental health care policy.
Kregg Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
Um said: Fine and dandy argument for those who do not wish treatment, but we are letting down more than just those who do not voluntarily seek treatment.
K: My point was that we can’t force treatment/identification/profiling etc. to predict future criminality and most don’t seek voluntary treatment so we’d have to force it.
U: This is a state by state thing, I bet California is fairly progressive with their public offerings of mental health care. Not so in Texas or many other states, however.
K: Yeah, I’d suspect TX to be behind the curve but not for the reasons people may think. TX is still a ‘rural’ state even though there are large urban areas and MH is EXPENSIVE! You’d have to supply each county with equal services and I’ll bet its just not possible down there. CA is pretty progressive but we still have roadblocks to care – most of which have to do with personal rights. My estimate of the 100 or so people who populate the park next to my church is that 90% have MH histories. We protect their rights to live as they choose and they must actually bring themselves close to death before we can intervene and force medications etc that would vastly help them.
U: I don’t think just wait till they get out of line so we can shoot them is good mental health care policy.
K: Its obviously not. And, to be fair, none of the recent mass killings OR cop killings have been by people with MH connections. So, singling out the MH population for suspicion isn’t very helpful to begin with.
Um Cara Reply:
April 5th, 2009 at 12:03 am
So, singling out the MH population for suspicion isn’t very helpful to begin with.
You don’t think these people are nuts? (to use the clinical term)
I’m not sure what their experience is with whatever limited mental health care programs their states offer, but most states have terrible mental health care – so my guess is that even if they had sought mental health care, or had family members that tried to get them into programs, it most likely would not have been available.
TX is still a ‘rural’ state
What do you mean by that? California has large rural communities as well, and I’d say Texas has more big cities, an a fairly high percentage of population living in big cities than most states.
How are you defining your terms?
Kregg Reply:
April 5th, 2009 at 12:18 am
K prv: So, singling out the MH population for suspicion isn’t very helpful to begin with.
U: You don’t think these people are nuts? (to use the clinical term)
K: I DO think they’re nuts. However, unless we deplete their rights so as to ‘protect’ ourselves we have to leave them in society. My point was that the last few mass killings – including the Columbine shootings – were NOT by people previously identified by the MH healthcare community. Were they NUTS? Most definitively but they were not MH type of nuts.
U: I’m not sure what their experience is with whatever limited mental health care programs their states offer, but most states have terrible mental health care – so my guess is that even if they had sought mental health care, or had family members that tried to get them into programs, it most likely would not have been available.
K: That well could be. I”m only familiar with CA, my home state.
K prv: TX is still a ‘rural’ state
U: What do you mean by that? California has large rural communities as well, and I’d say Texas has more big cities, an a fairly high percentage of population living in big cities than most states. How are you defining your terms?
K: My impression is that TX’s population is not basically urban. In CA over half our people live in large urban areas and doing so puts enough MH recipients together to make it practicaly to build intricate MH care delivery systems. I don’t know TX’s popultion distribution but my statement was made assuming a larger percentage of ‘rural’ or ’small town’ counties – EACH of which would need complete MH delivery systems for a relatively few clients each. VERY expensive per patient cost.
Um Cara Reply:
April 5th, 2009 at 12:27 am
My impression is that TX’s population is not basically urban.
Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Austin, El Paso, etc…
Quite a few big cities (well, I used to think they were big before I lived in a city of 17 million), don’t know the distribution either – but Texas has cash, we’re just stingy bastards.
Kregg Reply:
April 5th, 2009 at 12:50 am
You may be right. I don’t know TX’s stats.
April 4th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Kregg- if you and everybody else here has not figured out I’m not in the mental health field. Probably where I’m going wrong is trying to look at somebody who is crazy from a sane persons perspective. Although, I’m sure there is a lot of dissagreement on my personal sanity, especially on this site.
Kregg Reply:
April 4th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
DRK said: Kregg- if you and everybody else here has not figured out I’m not in the mental health field. Probably where I’m going wrong is trying to look at somebody who is crazy from a sane persons perspective. Although, I’m sure there is a lot of dissagreement on my personal sanity, especially on this site.
K: DRK, we could put them away as fast as we could round them up but we’d violate so many freedoms that we’d have to compare the risk/reward of such a society. If people are complaining about the ‘rights’ of gitmo detainees just think of the uproar over rounding up the POTENTIALLY dangerous mentally ill!
April 4th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
mike -
left wing inciteful language
Black panthers – kill the pigs
Ayers and weather underground – Kill the pigs, kids kill your parents.
Now I believe those are inciteful.
libpatriot Reply:
April 5th, 2009 at 12:52 am
True, Drk H. Inciteful, seditious language knows no partisan bounds.
April 4th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
There are roughly 40,000 fatalities from auto related incidents per year. I think I would start here and take away vehicle owning privileges,pass strict back ground checks and mental testing for drivers,inject each gallon of gas with an identifying agent, so we know who polluted exactly what air and when. Sounds pretty ridiculous doesn’t it? But it is always the same song and dance when it comes to gun related death, you always here from some anti gun nut “Oh the senseless,terrible tragedy against humanity, let’s do all we can to get rid of the guns, that will end all this.” I bet this same person would be annoyed to have to slow down for the rescue vehicles while they were trying to clean up a fatality accident site. PLEASE………..just as someone has already posted above “this is a perfect example why we need these new gun laws”. To this person I say….next time you pass a body lying along the freeway, be sure and act just as horrified and outraged instead of “shit, now I’m going to be late for my appointment”. p.s. I’m not from the right wing, I just try not to be ignorant so not to be labeled a “dumb” liberal.
Lee Reply:
April 5th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Tin,
That’s frankly a foolish analogy.
Auto’s are an essential requirement for many people to do their job, go shopping and live.
Gun’s are not.
Thus in the context of how important they are to living our lives:
Banning Auto’s is like banning telecommunications.
Banning Gun’s is like banning Games Consoles.
Big difference..
“I just try not to be ignorant so not to be labeled a “dumb” liberal.”
April 5th, 2009 at 12:55 am
This is one liberal that thinks we don’t need any more gun control laws. And, getting back to the gunman’s assertion about the president: I don’t believe Obama is going to push for any laws that take away guns for sporting and personal protection purposes. I really don’t.
Kregg Reply:
April 5th, 2009 at 1:09 am
Lib: I don’t believe Obama is going to push for any laws that take away guns for sporting and personal protection purposes. I really don’t.
K: I hope you’re right…
Um Cara Reply:
April 5th, 2009 at 1:11 am
I bet the ‘assault’ weapon ban comes back, with his support. The one where certain cosmetics affectations on firearms are illegal.
Haven’t heard much on the issue, but that at least is one rule I would not be terribly surprised to come back (to no effect whatsoever with regards to crime).
Drk H Reply:
April 5th, 2009 at 1:13 am
Lib -
thanks for the thanks n seditious language. It comes in all shapes and sizes. Although I listen a lot to the right wing radio, and don’t find them to be inciting any kind of hate. They have nothing to do with what has happened.
But the main point of my reply here would be my disagreement with you about O’s intentions on limiting more guns. I think they are going to use the scare in Mexico as reason to pass another assault weapons ban. In so doing, they will try to get as many other guns as they can also classified as assault weapons. I am glad to see this area of contention is met with a lot more liberal support for gun rights than I expected.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:59 am
It is truly unfortunate that those who are emotionally challenged fall victim to the radical right’s hate speech.
April 5th, 2009 at 2:23 am
“”Exactly. However, even if one has a ‘mental disorder’ it can be near impossible to predetermine which will become dangerous….”
LOL.
We’re so glad to have you’re insight here…
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 5th, 2009 at 3:21 am
McFROSTY,
You’re so willing to bemoan people’s insight…Care to identify for us which mental disorders will turn a man dangerous, then? Since you’ve read a lot of books and all…and are so smart about everything…
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 5th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
no no, that came out wrong…Kregg actually had such a run of sounding like he knew what he was talking about for a change, I actually thought I was dreaming…
also, I said I liked books, but mostly to color them
Kregg Reply:
April 5th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Frosty said: Kregg actually had such a run of sounding like he knew what he was talking about for a change, I actually thought I was dreaming…
K: Scary, isn’t it?! ;-)
April 5th, 2009 at 3:02 am
Well, Mr. Frosty…
The mental disorder of dellusional paranoia that is ampliphied by conspiratorial hate speech spewed from the over-inflated limbaughlaughable gland…located just south of the hollowhannitycavity that some refer to as a cranium.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 5th, 2009 at 4:49 am
ROBERT,
clever…but still the same old stuff from the left. Nothing but anti-right wing rhetoric…but not an ounce of substance. Good on you.
April 5th, 2009 at 4:46 am
Yep…same old …lots of votes…want some new stuff….go visit Foxnation…they love your kind over there….
April 5th, 2009 at 4:53 am
ROBERT,
Exactly what is “my kind”? A person who calls out bigotry and hate? Yep…I’m that kind.
April 5th, 2009 at 4:55 am
LOL
Nice try…I’d say you are not a supporter of the president or the congress…at least the congressional members that have attempted to move the country forward against the most predominate abuse of the filibuster provision in history….well over 100 times in 2008 and still “at the ready” in the radical right party of “no”s quiver.
April 5th, 2009 at 5:03 am
I say killing machines for evreybody!! I demand that all shopping malls install firearm dispensing vending machines! After all, if people kill people, then we have no problem.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Legitimate, sincere question: when was the last time a left/liberal leaning deranged individual shot up someplace??
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 5th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
hmmm…I don’t know that’s a question that’s being asked during the “interview” process.
“Mr Jones…we know you shot up an old workspace…killed 15 people…let me ask…what’s your political affiliation?”3
As a matter of fact, we don’t whether this Chinese guy OR this guy in NY were conservatives or libs. Despite what the majority of political idealists think…you can disagree with the party in control without “consorting with the enemy”.
Kregg Reply:
April 5th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Budda asked: Legitimate, sincere question: when was the last time a left/liberal leaning deranged individual shot up someplace??
K: A couple of weeks ago in Oakland, CA. Killed four cops. Presuming a left/liberal leaning because he was a hispanic criminal if I recall correctly. In fact, to make a point, if you accept that blacks in the US vote 90% Democrat and acknowledged the extremely high percentage of murder in the US that is black on black you’d have to accept that “left /liberal leaning’ individuals ’shoot up places’ on a regular basis…
April 5th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Probably early in the 1800’s
April 5th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
I do think people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hanity, Ann Coulter, Gleen Beck, Micheal Savage, Bill O’Reilly and others say a lot of hateful things about our president. But I can’t blame them for the actions of a person like this who killed these policeman in the line of duty. And the access to guns is not to blame either. I think he wanted to do this and used that stuff about thinking the president was going to take his guns away as an excuse. I just hope the right wing talkers don’t try to tie this man’s actions to President Obama and his agenda. There are over 5 million people out of work in this country now and they did not take someone’s life. This guy did this on his own. So let him take the fall on his own.
April 5th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
“”I live in a much more dangerous area than probably any other poster on this blog..”"
Obviously you’ve never heard of the wild Canadian badger?
April 5th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
wolverenes……they are like badgers with lipstick.
I’ll send you a crate full, Bad.
Taylor, I would suggest you watch some of their shows….Billo is the most civil…and I almost choked on that one….John Gibson is not mentioned in your posting…he’s a foxite who was released from tv so he could go nuts on the satilite fox talk station…
The question begs…what or where would someone like the shooter have to go for feeding his radical right hatred of his fellow man if not the handy dandy faux “news” channel??? Maybe, the KKK post, or even some other nutty radical right websites or documents…..but, he was a sicky…and he found his views at faux…
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 5th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Pure unfounded and unsubstantiated junk.
April 5th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Speaking of anti Obama nuts who are violent (nice transition, huh?), did you guys see Newt on tv? He stated that he would have “disabled” the Korean missile on the launch pad before it was fired. In other words, he would have bombed, used some magnetic weapon, or other form of weaponry, to destroy the capability of North Korea (inside their sovereign borders)to fire a peaceful missile <== peaceful in that it had no warhead.
Sure, it was against UN directives, but violence??? Yipes….Newt is really off the cliff in his radical right mind……oops, I forgot, he checked a recent fox poll that said Americans favored torture and stopping Korea from firing off the missile….my error, Newt….yeah…you might be right…thank God, the administration is smarter than just looking at the poll.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 5th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Once again…detractors of the right are seemingly always willing to give the benefit of the doubt to foriegn heads of state instead of their own government.
The missile didn’t have a warhead? And how is it that you know this, ROBERT? Because Kim Jong Il said so?
April 5th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
I like what Lee has to say.
I wrote about this tragedy today. My solution is not an overnight thing. It’s to implement and enforce strict enough gun laws so that over the next five or ten years we have half as many guns in America. With gun availability cut in half, we may not have cut the violence in half, but it’ll be significantly down. And if we like those results, we can begin on phase two of my plan, but we’re getting ahead of ourselves.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2009/04/pittsburgh-tragedy-3-dead-policemen.html
April 5th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Still no specifics, huh? The 80’s?? Fear of Obama taking away his guns..blah, blah , blah…right leaning wingnuts, all of them.
April 5th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
[...] 4 April: Gunman kills three policemen in Pittsburgh before being wounded and [...]
April 5th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
As far as the latest cop kiling, relatives close to him was afraid Obama would take his guns. That is relative to the fear- mongering of Beck, Rush, Hannity, et al. Though the blame is squarely with the shooter, right wing radio has a responsibility in all this. I listen to Rush and Hannity. They incite hatred and bigotry. Especially Rush. Free speech has it’s consequences.
And to whoever compared Olbermann, Matthews, and Maddow to Rush, Hannity, Beck…are clearly not intellectually honest (Hannity’s favorite phrase ::coughdouchebagcough::) with themselves. Right wing talk radio lies and lies for one purpose only…to anger people. They want their audience angry. It’s scary. I laugh sometimes, but in all seriousness, it’s frightening the bullsh*t they spew.
April 6th, 2009 at 12:28 am
Gun control just feeds the paranoia of the NRA and their legions of second amendment fanatics. It is similar to prohibition…it focuses on the tool of misuse rather than the core reasons people seek out the tool….in other words, why do people need to drink? Why do people feel the need to have guns? The same goes for the “war on drugs”. We focus on the supply rather than the need (or demand) side. In all three instances, I suggest we examine the “demand” or need side of the equation. Why do people need to drink? Have tons of guns? Lose themselves in the addiction to substances?
April 6th, 2009 at 4:01 am
THAT GUY BECAME PARANOID AFTER ATTENDING A TEA PARTY
WHERE HANNITY ENCOURAGED HIM TO BECOME VIOLENT, EVEN
AGAINST THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT.
April 6th, 2009 at 11:52 am
So in other words, you’re saying that the shooter was a Republican.
Thank you for reassuring us of your paranoia Alan.
April 6th, 2009 at 8:25 pm