Some commentators who oppose what they see as unconstitutional limits on gun ownership said they feared gun control advocates would successfully use the Virginia tragedy to bolster their position, especially with Democrats’ new power in Washington. “We see calls for gun control but we may not see as much empathy for calls for armed self-defense,” said David Codrea, a blogger and a columnist for Guns Magazine.Pretty tepid stuff. I'd settle for just kindling the issue in the first place. As I alluded to yesterday, I contacted major papers and networks with the following questions:
Why don’t you consider the fact that Virginia Tech policy prohibits firearms on campus—even for concealed weapon permit holders—important enough to inform your readers and viewers?This is what I spent the brunt of my time discussing with reporter Leslie Eaton. What she quoted me on was an afterthought to a follow-up question. To her credit, I don't think the decision to cut the majority of our conversation came from her. She sent me a follow-up email, saying in part:
Why do I read, watch and listen in vain to find any reference to a bill that never made it out of committee that would have changed that? Why did Virginia Tech Associate VP of University Relations Larry Hincker say the death of the bill that would have allowed adult students and faculty the means to defend themselves made him “happy”?
Why did Hincker pen an editorial reply on The Roanoake Times ridiculing the concept of peaceable people keeping and bearing arms on campus?
Why have your respective outlets been silent on these matters?
i'm afraid some of my reporting on the debate over carrying ban in virginia may not make this piece because i had to include a lot of political stuff from washington. i hope to try again tomorrow. but i used your thought about the dem. congress.I hope she does try again, and at least one major outlet covers these important questions. Here's what I wrote back:
I...appreciate that you will try again. I just don't see how the editors can consider their obligation to their readers complete by omitting discussion of VTech's campus disarmament policy, the failed bill, and the hostile public statements of the university spokesman.I suppose I ought to look at the bright side. I got ink in "The Paper of Record," they didn't misquote me, and most importantly, they spelled my name right.
UPDATE: I just got a copy of the paper and the article appears on page A19.
26 comments:
EXCELLENT David!
Thank you very much for pursuing this most of us don't have the same access to the media you do and your actions are invaluable in getting out the facts of the matter.
I called a syndicated radio show out of Boston yesterday, I was able to mention the 2002 Appalachian Law School shootings and how armed citizens likely saved lives. I mentioned the legislation that would have allowed CCW on the VA tech campus by 2006 and how it was defeated in part by the efforts of law enforcement and VA Tech administration.
I was even able to get the VERY liberal host of the show to concede that lives would have likely been saved at VA Tech on Monday. But he said that "thousands" would have been killed by CCW carry on campuses, insulted me then hung up.
:-)
Civil discourse indeed!
Subsequent callers went into fits decrying me as a nut for saying a firearm is a tool useful in an emergency akin to a fire extinguisher.
Well, at least I got the truth out there, little chance it was "heard" though considering the audience...
I also sent the same info to my senators, representatives, governor, and the speakers of both houses. For whatever good it will do.
Thank you again for all you do. Freedom loving Americans appreciate it.
You guys are priceless! I mean, comparing a gun with a fire extinguisher, I've never thought about that!
Hope you'll post a big "April fool" soon, because after what happened your blog is not funny anymore...
Start thinking or shut up, that would be better for all your fellow citizens.
A few words from a Euro-peon whose coming to the USA to study next year.
So, Robin:
Which part of Europe are you from?
Superbly done, as always, David.
That's an easy one. The world's changing, don't you know it? French and German are know the biggest economic partners for each others. Maybe I'm a "damn french coward", maybe I'm a "crazy nazi german"... That's right, the US saved us from tyranni more than half a century ago. you should also know that a long time ago, when american patriots where fighting against the British Empire, french soldiers were there to help. And who sold you Louisiana (which was far wider than nowadays Louisiana)?
There is no such things as two parts of Europe know, we try to be united and to stand for liberty as well as safety. Check the figures, European countries are safer than the USA, we don't know shocking school murdering like Va Tech one. Believe me, I'm really sad for your country, I just don't understand why you keep on loving guns so much... I try to understand, I'm studying your constitution and you history, I went in the USA, I have american friends (well... californians ones, I guess they're not fully americans for you ;^)), I dig the news (that's how I land on your blog)... Still, the view point many of you are sharing about guns really looks insane to me. That's not a simple gun-lovers bashing, I know you have had a particular history, I know guns are part of your culture (notably in the South), I respect it. Just begin to consider that thinking that an armed country is a safer one IS NOT a common idea. Ok, you can share it but the great majority of the citizens in developed country (Japan, Canada, European Union, Australie...) are striken by such an assertion.
Although I seem a bit harsh and probably nut to you, please, don't tell me the classical "you euro-peon people are nuts" song. You got one culture, I got another one. What I'm doing is trying to study your society in greater depth so that I can understand (I don't talk about sharing) your opinion.
We support the USA in its mourn, and I still look forward to coming in your facinating country.
Robin
David, well done as always!
Oh, and Robin? Nice "Hit and Run" there... I notice you also elected to hide your Blogger Profile from view, so we cannot see who you are, nor can we have a look at your own blog and judge for ourselves what sort of intellect you truly possess.
So, Robin; which part of Europe ARE you from? And what do you do when you and yours are threatened by societies "rough edges"? Just curious...
--Cousin G
The only reason you can't see my blogger profile is because I don't have any. ;^)
Thought, I have a blog but it's all about music and it's just for entertainment. And I must say that I prefer "post and talk" than "hit and run". I'm not claiming a brilliant intelect, I'm just a student planing to study Law in the US (and maybe pass the american bar).
If "societies rough edges" stands for urban riots you're into it because where I'm from it's election time (now you know which "side" I'm from^^) and all the candidates tackle the problem of domestic security. But about the riots (which WERE NOT ethnic riots), let me remind you that there had not been a single dead man whereas riots in american history throught the past decades led to heavy death-tolls.
And please, forgive my English, I'm still learning. ;^)
Gee Robin,
I'm so glad "European countries are safer than the USA, we don't know shocking school murdering like Va Tech one."
But wait, what this?
"Throughout the night and into Saturday, shocked and grieving residents in the German city of Erfurt laid flowers and candles outside the school where a shooting rampage left 18 dead."
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/04/26/germany.shooting/
Or this?
"A lone gunman has gone on a shooting spree at a school in Dunblane, Scotland, killing 16 children and their teacher."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/13/newsid_2543000/2543277.stm
Yes, well thankfully you can never experience such tragedies in gun free europe.
And exactly what sort of tool would you suggest one use when confronted with a murdering animal?
Me, I'll prefer a handgun. I hope I will never EVER need one, but I also hope to never ever have a fire in my home but I have fire extinguishers just in case and I make sure they are in good working order and are readily accessible at all times.
I wonder how you think of a gun? To you it is not a tool which is morally neutral useful for a specific purpose, but rather it is an evil device which enables people to kill.
Clearly we differ in opinion.
The question is who is being unreasonable?
Sorry for the broken links.
I'm not good posting such things.
But the links referred to the April 26, 2002 shooting in Erfurt Germany and the 1996 shooting in Dunblane Scotland.
Prior to Monday's tragedy in VA the shooting in Germany was the worst school shooting in world history in terms of the deaths, Dunblane was the 2nd highest.
Robin--
Society's "rougher edges" can be anything from gangs of unemployed muslim men torching cars in French Ghettos to petty thieves, and others who would do violence to you and yours for a variety of reasons. If and when you are confronted by situations like these, how do you defend yourself and your loved ones?
Your command of the English language is quite good, by the way; but it ill-befits one who aspires to study the law to belittle others. Even if you are from France...
--Cousin G
Ok, there is shooting in Europe but not on the same scale. See this article: http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=9030529&fsrc=RSS
"Mass killings remain rare events, whatever outsiders might think, and they also happen in other countries, including those with tight rules on gun ownership. But life in modern America is punctuated frighteningly often by such attacks. Making any sort of accurate international comparison is tricky, but some attempts have been tried. The International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), an activist group, counts 41 school shootings in America since 1996, which have claimed 110 lives, including those in Virginia this week. IANSA also looks at school shootings in 80 other countries. Culling from media reports, they count only 14 school gun killings outside America in the same period. Putting aside the Beslan massacre in Russia—committed by an organised terrorist group—school shootings in all those countries claimed just 59 victims."
I agree with the fact that gun is a useful tool but don't say that it's a common tool. It built to hurt, built to kill. I'm not saying it's evil, just that the very purpose of a gun is to kill. Fire extinghuishers are built to stop a fire, they don't intend to blast a piece of flesh. Your opinion is that a country with citizens bearing handguns is safer whereas in my opinion it is the symptom of a society ruled by fear and non-confidence... Your message is "Everybody in te USA has to bear a gun" and my reply is "how sad"! Why aren't you thinking of a way to change your country so that you won't need guns in your pockets? Don't misunderstood me, I'm not whining for you to choose the "flower power" bullshit, I'm trying to tell you that if you so need guns it's probably that there is something wrong somewhere. And I'm not saying that Europe is perfect but when we have a problem we try to fix it.
Robin,
IANSA is a virulently anti gun organization. Take what you hear from them with grain of salt.
"I agree with the fact that gun is a useful tool but don't say that it's a common tool."
If a tool is useful should it not be commonly available?
"It built to hurt, built to kill. I'm not saying it's evil, just that the very purpose of a gun is to kill."
Actually the purpose of a gun is to fire a projectile propelled by a chemical reaction. That projectile can be directed at a target at the Olympics, or at a grocery store clerk during a robbery. The projectile can be fired by a soldier to kill a terrorist with a hostage, or by the terrorist to kill the hostage. The gun is a mechanical device, nothing more.
"Fire extinghuishers are built to stop a fire, they don't intend to blast a piece of flesh."
Neither the fire extinguisher nor the gun is capable of having ANY intentions at all. If a criminal used a fire extinguisher to beat someone to death no one would suggest we should ban them, no one would suggest extinguishers are evil.
You have either consciously or unconsciously attributed intentions and motives to inanimate objects. This is sadly very common among those that dislike guns. It is called projection.
I am glad that you are willing to discuss the issue and consider your own position.
When you make a statement regarding guns consider whether you would make the same statement regarding say, an axe or a car, or a bag of ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel.
All are effective tools to kill if that is the intent of the person (ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel can be used to create a powerful bomb, or fertilize a field and fuel a tractor).
If your statement seems reasonable when discussing other inanimate objects then at least you're not projecting intent to something that cannot have intent.
I find your arguments interesting, I totally agree with the fact that "if there's a shot, there's a man". Men are responsible indeed. The problem is that in american society the fact that you can have a gun quite easily contribute to the fact that many guns are in bad hands.
Here, in France (you're guess was right), when I feel threaten by someone I don't have to fight back with a gun because the agressor won't have a gun. In the end conflicts are less lethal. That's a shame that french society created ghettos but when there is violent riots during several weeks there is no killing...
Speaking about "gangs" there is no such organisation as your kind (mafia does exist in France but not gangs as big american cities know them). Gun fights in streets are very rare, and even cops are told to use their handguns in last resort.
Most of my friends are scared when they go to someone's home and see that there's a gun. No because they fell that they could be shot down by a friend (though you never what drank people can do ;)) but because before beeing a tool to protect myself the gun is a weapon offered to my attacker. And it is hard to deny that a angry man with a gun is more dangerous than a angry man with a pocket knife (or even a kitchen knife).
Robin,
"The problem is that in american society the fact that you can have a gun quite easily contribute to the fact that many guns are in bad hands."
In the united States you might be You might be surprised to know that there are more than 20,000 twenty thousand Federal, state, and local gun laws.
In Massachusetts where I live and am licensed to own and carry firearms including handguns. As a lawful gunowner in Massachusetts I am already subject to being treated with suspicion simply to own firearms (personal property).
I have been fingerprinted, subjected to criminal background checks, questioned by law enforcement. I have been forced to pay hundreds of dollars for permits, licenses, and fees. The approval process is completely arbitrary in my state by the way. You can be rejected by the local police office just because they don't like the way you look.
You might find it interesting to know the procedure for a Massachusetts resident to legally purchase a handgun from another state:
1. The individual must possess a License to Carry Firearms under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 140, Section 131. (A felony is an automatic lifetime disqualification for this license.)
2. The handgun that is to be purchased must meet the manufacturing requirements of 940 CMR 16.00 and MGL Chapter 140, Section 123. These regulations and laws restrict the makes and models of handguns that can legally be sold in Massachusetts.
3. The handgun must also meet the requirements of MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M which bans the possession, sale or transfer of high capacity magazines.
4. If the handgun is owned by a private citizen in another state, the handgun must be transferred to a federally licensed dealer (18 U.S. Code 923).
5. Once in the possession of the dealer, the handgun information must be placed in the dealer’s permanent records (Bound Book - 27 CFR 178.125).
6. Then the firearm must be transferred to a licensed dealer in the state of Massachusetts. The dealer must be licensed under federal law (18 U.S. Code 923) and state law (Chapter 140, Section 123). Again, the handgun information must be recorded in the in-state dealers Bound Book.
7. The proposed Massachusetts buyer must then appear in person to the Massachusetts Dealer and present their valid License to Carry a firearm and identification.
8. The buyer must complete a federal form ATF 4473 answering question about 17 different questions regarding their status as a qualified individual.
9. The dealer must also fill out a state form FA-10 which contains the information of the seller/dealer, the buyer and a description of the firearm. The form must then be signed by the purchaser.
10. If more than one handgun is being purchased within a five day period the dealer is required to fill out BATFE Form 3310 and submit a copy to the BATFE and the state agency in charge of licensing before the close of business.
11. The dealer must then conduct a background check on the proposed buyer through the National Instant Checks System.
12. If the dealer is equipped through the new Massachusetts Instant Records Checks System (MIRCS), the buyer must submit to a digital scan and recognition of their fingerprints.
13. If all the checks have passed, the dealer must instruct the buyer on the safe use and operation of the firearm and provide a tamper resistant mechanical locking device that has been approved by the Colonel of the Massachusetts State Police.
14. If all of the above steps are met, the transaction may take place.
Speaking of World War II, Robin, let's look at why Americans were there in the first place. Nazi Germany was, of course, the worst scourge on the earth at that time. Remember, too, that the Nazi party of Germany was the National SOCIALIST party. Socialism has may forms, including the most brutal one, Communism. The citizens had been disarmed by their government, which enabled the Nazi thugs to commit Kristallnacht and the Holocaust. (Yes, it really did happen, and Ahmadine"jihad" is lying when he denies it.) Every government throughout history that has committed genocide on its people first disarmed them. That's why we got involved. On another point, the Swiss in WWII were all heavily armed at the civilian level, and they knew how to fight! Nazi Germany left them alone! Even today, they are heavily armed, and have one of the lowest crime rates in Europe. Yet, the Swiss government is now considering the (exceedingly dubious) benefits of gun control, probably because they are part of this European Union.
You reference our War for Independence, and say the French helped us. Indeed they did. But they waited to see if we had a chance of winning, which we would not have had if we didn't have our privately owned weapons. By the way, it wasn't taxation without representation that sparked the War for Independence, and it wasn't the Stamp Act, or the Townshend Act, or the Intolerable Acts, although they added fuel to the fire. No, what actually sparked the War was gun control. The British confiscated the guns of Boston subjects, but Paul Revere, William Dawes and another rider, got out and spread the alarm. When the Redcoats got to Lexington and Concord, we were ready, and the "shot heard 'round the world" was fired, and the War was on! We, the People used our privately owned firearms to help win our independence. Later, when France sold us the Louisiana Purchase, we would not have been able to settle in it without private firearms.
Now let's look at England, and what happened after Dunblane. England already had some pretty severe gun control at the time, and they just decided "That's all!", and banned guns outright. Well, handguns, anyway, and one has to be a member of a shooting club, and keep his gun locked up at the club when he's not there shooting. Their murder by firearms rate now nearly matches ours, and their other gun crimes now exceed ours by a wide margin. I don't know what gun laws there are in Germany, or whether they changed after the Ehrfurt mass murder, but the gun laws there did nothing to stop the worst school murder spree (outside of Beslan, because it was done by an organized terrorist group, you say).
So you see, Robin, that guns are, as you said, morally neutral. Yes, they are primarily designed as weapons, but it's what the user chooses to do with it that adds the moral or immoral component. It's not immoral to hunt, nor to defend yourself with a gun. It is, of course, immoral to seek revenge, commit robbery, or murder with one. (those are immoral whether or not one uses a gun)
A final thought, Robin. It worries me that you are coming to the U.S. to study law. With your socialist worldview, I worry that you will work to subvert, denigrate, or even destroy our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. If that's what you plan to do, please stay home!
Robin,
You might find it enlightening to review some enduring myths regarding guns in the United States and comparing them with the actual facts.
I'm quite certain you will be shocked how much of what passes for fact in Europe is actually verifiability absolutely untrue.
An excellent start would be the Gun Fact Guide.
http://www.gunfacts.info/
It is exhaustively documented and footnoted so you can confirm the statements for yourself.
I think once you realize how many times you have been lied to by gun banners you will come to appreciate the gun rights proponents points of view.
All I ask is that you ask yourself after considering both sides; who is basing their assertions on facts and who is appealing to emotion.
I wasn't quite clear on England's gun ban. Handguns are indeed banned outright. It's long guns (rifles and shotguns) that can only be kept at clubs, and they're heavly regulated as to what kind. No semi-automatics of any kind, for example.
Crotalus,
In my opinion Robin has been very open to at least discussing the topic.
This is exceedingly rare amongst people with an initial aversion to guns.
Rather than be confrontational why not invite her to a discussion?
I'd rather take the chance that I'll convince someone that they have been misguided than confirm that gunowners are hostile to anyone that disagrees with them.
Robin, I for one welcome your comments all any gunowner asks is that you respect our rights and consider the facts rather than the hyperbole.
Just a detail about what crotalus said:
Swiss is not part of the European Union and it won't change for the years to come. ;^)
No offense but I find your view of history a bit biased. Great historians, and among them americans (actually, the historian who gave the most insightful description of what we call "Vichy" in France -the regime that hold France against De Gaulle's resistance during WWII-is american) showed that it is very complicated. Swiss has been neutral in european conflict for a very long time, their situation is very specific. Let me remind you that they were in kind of collaboration with Germany and that swiss banks contributed to the despoliation of the Jews of Europe. By the way, I know that Holocaust (in France we call it "shoah") DID happened. French Jews were killed as well as German and Polish ones (and many more) and that's the most hurting part of European history.
And don't worry, when it comes to universities and Law Schools many american and french people get along with each others. Sometimes they even draft books together ;^) Besides, I love your constitution but I also love the idea that it can be interprated at the light of social and economical changes.
Thanks for the information 1894c, this is very interesting. I guess all the states legisislations are not as strict as in Massachusetts. I'd like to know what you think about gun-free university. As I said before I'm not in an anti-gun crusade; as an observer I'm just wondering which solutions you are thinking about, other than giving weapons to every students. I'd also like to know what you think those shooting reveal about your society. I mean, when riots occured in French I felt very concerned and try to think about what to do to prevent that. Here, what I hear is not due to prevent the shooting but to lower the death-tolls of the shootings.
Is giving everybody the right to bring a gun in his classroom the only solution you're thinking about for a more peaceful society? For a better "live-together"?
I'm glad to argue with someone like you 1894c, you surely don't look like a fanatic and bring clear informations (I'll check gun facts). I know that in the end we cannot agree with each others but be sure that I'll consider your opinion when I'll think about american society and guns in the future.
Hope you'll also be careful about Europe: "I'm quite certain you will be shocked how much of what passes for fact in the US [about Europe] is actually verifiability absolutely untrue." :^)
Robin,
I too enjoyed conversing on this topic with you. I very much regret however that it was such a tragic event that precipitated the conversation.
I think you will find that gun owners are by and large excellent sources of information on gun laws in the United States and gun control at large. We have to be in order to stay in compliance with the myriad of laws.
You asked the question:
"Is giving everybody the right to bring a gun in his classroom the only solution you're thinking about for a more peaceful society? For a better "live-together"?"
I must correct an important point. In the United States we believe that certain rights are inalienable that is they are inherent. Therefore they cannot be given, or for that matter taken away.
The Declaration of Independence states these principals:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
The entire Declaration can be found here I highly recommend you read it:
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience
/charters/charters.html
The right to defend ones life is fundamental to being free. Our founding fathers knew that without the means to defend our rights we could be robbed of them. Our Bill of Rights are enumerations of our inalienable rights described in the Declaration of Independence.
To understand why gun ownership is so important you must become familiar with the tenants of liberty upon which this country was founded.
In addition to the Declaration of Independence I suggest you read the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights (which are the first ten amendments to the US Constitution), and perhaps most importantly The Federalist Papers.
The Federalist Papers written and published during the years 1787 and 1788 they describe the hows and whys of what the United States is.
You can find excellent resources for the Federalist Papers Here:
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/federalist/
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa00.htm
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed.htm
I would be glad to offer my own meager contribution if you have questions.
One of the regular contributors
E. David Quammen Here:
http://gunshowonthenet.blogspot.com/
Has done exhaustive research regarding the founding fathers and the right to keep and bear arms. I think a visit to his site would also be very informative.
In short by reviewing the documents I mentioned you can develop an very good picture of why Americans "stick to our guns".
I hope you will take some time to review the documents I mentioned and will let us know what you think.
Best regards.
I would appreciate it if we could get back on point of this post--we've strayed way far afield: the media is for the most part ignoring the VTech disarmament policy and the contempt its spokesman has for people defending themselves. This is an important component of the entire story that should not be intentionally overlooked--as it apparently has been.
Would people who have had the time to post here please also take a moment to contact networks and newspapers and challenge them to include this information in their coverage?
Robin, if I came across as confrontational, I apologise. I guess I've seen too many anti-gunners who weren't interested in our side at all, but just wanteto tell us we were nuts. You do appear willing to hear our side, which is far better than most of what I've seen.
I didn't know that Switzerland wasn't part of the European Union. I had heard that their government was considering some gun control, but maybe they aren't anymore.
I do stand by the history of our War for Independence that I wrote of earlier.
I also stand by what I wrote about English gun control. I believe it's true.
As to the allusion that you didn't believe the Holocaust took place, again, my apologies. I did not know your beliefs there. It's just that there are those who do not believe.
My last paragraph was the most antagonistic, because I presumed something about your beliefs that I did not know. After so much derision from so many, I guess I was as touchy as my namesake. (Crotalus is the genus name for the American rattlesnakes, and I refer to the "Don't Tread on Me" flags.) Come. Study our laws. See how our Constitution and our Bill of Rights are supposed to work. Welcome.
Oops, sorry David.
I guess I helped drift off topic.
It was encouraging to have a anti gun person willing to consider their position.
No more OT drifts from though.
My letter to Hincker. No response as of yet. 3days and counting
"Are you still pleased that your Defenseless Student policy was not overturned by state law? Are you pleased that so many have died and been wounded because you and others at Virginia Tech decided that the purity of how you think it should be was upheld and these people died and suffered grievous injury, but did not escalate the violence? That is the next spin on your stance isn't it? "At least the violence was not escalated by some horrid displays of old west gunfights in the streets. " Of course, we must remember that it wasn't stopped either, because you made that monster the most powerful man everywhere he walked that day on the environs under your care.
Will you get an award for such a forward looking progressive program? Maybe the A. Eichmann Award for Societal Solutions?
Shame on you and the entire administration and all who push the lie that helplessness makes one safer."
Why are none of the media not asking Mr. Hincker this same question? Wouldn't it be appropriate for a REAL newsman to ask him if perhaps he might wish to reevaluate his stance?
Great work David, a great coup for you and for the gunrights community getting some coverage on the NY Times.
Hincker was on the radio this morning he said something to the effect that
We are all devastated by this tragedy and we cannot understand why this happened.
I was of course incensed. It happened at least in part because of his direct actions.
Hincker has been a vociferous advocate of gun bans on that campus. He shouted down any opposition.
Many people died defenseless, hiding in fear for their lives, while LEOs "waited for the situation to develop".
They were deprived of any opportunity to defend themselves with adequate force specifically because of the policy Hincker himself so enthusiastically endorsed.
Post a Comment