Welcome to Common Gunsense

I hope this blog will provoke some thoughtful reflection about the issue of guns and gun violence. I am passionate about the issue and would love to change some misperceptions and the culture of gun violence in America by sharing with readers words, photos, videos and clips from articles to promote common sense about gun issues. Many of you will agree with me- some will not. I am only one person but one among many who think it's time to do something about this national problem. The views expressed by me in this blog do not represent any group with which I am associated but are rather my own personal opinions and thoughts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

What we need vs. what we want?

I have read so many articles in the press and heard so many on national news programs that I am hard pressed to pick out one that expresses my views better than another. All I know is that what I am reading supports everything I have blogged about. My detractors, adults all of them, or at least I think they are, have been insensitively claiming that I, the Brady Campaign, the Violence Policy Center and pretty much anyone who dares to talk in the media about the Tucson shootings are "dancing in the blood" of the victims. Think about this. Here are adults who are making such a claim as if there wasn't enough blood running from all of the shootings in this country in part because the gun lobby has made it impossible to consider gun laws that might reduce or prevent the carnage. 

I picked out this editorial by Harold Meyerson of the Washington Post as just one example of the many articles written in the last few days. Meyerson connects the lines between the incendiary rhetoric and the use of actual violence. His thesis is that the insistence that government is out to take things away or out to do grievous harm to people makes them feel paranoid and suspicious of those who represent government. He gives many examples of those who, mostly on the right side of the spectrum, have fanned the flames of this kind of rhetoric. It's pretty clear what this means: " Last October, Glenn Beck was musing on his radio show about the prospect of the government seizing his children if he didn't give them flu vaccines. "You want to take my kids because of that?" he said. "Meet Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson.""

Back to blood, metaphors and words, this statement from Sarah Palin was lacking in sincerity. If she really wanted to convince the public that she had empathy, why bring in a code word known to the far right and the extreme religious of her supporters? " The use of the phrase "blood libel" -- a term that has its origins in anti-Semitic accusations about Jews using the blood of Christian children in their religious rituals -- is a loaded one and immediately became the central focus of a statement that spanned 1,141 words." If you read this, you will wonder what Palin was thinking when she used that terminology. Does she really think or care about if this will calm her detractors over her failure to speak about what was on her web site and then suddenly not? Instead she started the criticisms all over again. In fact, I have heard the word "perverse" to describe her violent imagery. She doesn't appear to have much in the area of common sense.


And then there's the NRA which is offering prayers and not much else right now: " "Anything other than prayers for the victims and their families at this time would be inappropriate."" Yes, prayers are good. I asked for prayers for the victims and their families and friends last Sunday at my church. I also asked for prayers that our elected leaders would do the right thing. But what else does the NRA have to offer? Prayers will not stop the shootings. We need action. Will the NRA be part of the solution or part of the divisiveness about gun laws and trot out their tired old arguments. Guns don't kill people, people do. If you pass any "gun control" laws the government will ban all of your guns. It's a slippery slope. More guns make us safer so let's push for more guns and more assault rifles and more dangerous ammunition clips and more unpermitted people carrying guns in any and all public places because that will make us all safer. Please. Can we forget all of that and move on to a serious adult-like conversation about this issue? Lives depend on it.


Have we heard anyone but the NRA say it's a good idea to allow the sale of ammunition clips that hold more than 30 bullets? Many are pretty sure that the NRA has gone too far advocating for the things they want and not the things they need. For a while, they may have cleverly convinced some in the public and many in Congress and state houses that their want list is their must have list of types of guns, ammunition, places to carry, who can carry, etc. What they think they want is just not common sense. We can't always have what we want. At some point there is a common good when it comes to saving lives and preventing death. Will the adults in the country please stand up and do the right thing? 


Today, I heard one of the best conversations about the Tucson shootings and gun issues in general on Minnesota Public Radio's Morning Edition. Listen carefully as Frank Newport: Editor in Chief of Gallup, Bob Spitzer: Professor of political science at State Univeristy of New York at Corland and author of three books on gun control including "The Politics of Gun Control.", and Daniel Vice: Senior Attorney for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence field listener questions. There were many calls from gun owners and permit holders making their points but what I heard was that these folks believed in reasonable gun laws knowing that their own rights would not be taken from them. One man, a permit holder and one who teaches classes to other permit holders even agreed after some discussion that 30 round clips were just not necessary and that it was not a good idea for people with no training walking around with loaded guns in public places like they can in Arizona. Thanks to the moderator of this program, Kerri Miller, who is always fair and thorough on her program.


It is possible to have a sane and reasonable discussion about gun laws and gun issues if the adults in the room step up to the plate. They might need a good moderator, though. I know we can get to common ground and common sense if we only give it a try.






48 comments:

  1. So who defines what one 'needs'? IANSA (of which the BC is a member) has proclaimed that only those who prove they 'need' to hunt will be allowed single shot shotguns, licensed and stored in a separate facility.

    Is this common sense?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Where are you anyway? I literally posted this one minute ago. Come on. Relax. It is not required of you to post a comment immediately on my posts. Go do something else for a while. This is crazy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "The use of the phrase "blood libel" -- a term that has its origins in anti-Semitic accusations about Jews using the blood of Christian children in their religious rituals -- is a loaded one"

    Yes, it is. And it's about the only term that carries sufficient weight to accurately describe the vile behavior of Klugman et al., and their accusation about the political rights' responsibility for this tragedy.

    "Have we heard anyone but the NRA say it's a good idea to allow the sale of ammunition clips that hold more than 30 bullets."

    In a free society, the question isn't whether "we" think it's a good idea, but whether the government has sufficient justification to restrict. It's not just an absurd idea that we should allow the government the power to ban anything, simply because some folks fear that other folks might misuse it, it's a very dangerous one.

    "agreed after some discussion that 30 round clips were just not necessary and that it was not a good idea for people with no training walking around with loaded guns in public places"

    I'm not sure how that is relevant.

    It's not a good idea for people to wander around in public with loaded guns without training. It's a far worse idea to let government control that training, and worse yet to let them mandate it.

    But unless you believe that Loughner would have caused less damage, if he'd had more training, it's got nothing to do with the topic.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Have we heard anyone but the NRA say it's a good idea to allow the sale of ammunition clips that hold more than 30 bullets?"

    I'll say it. Extended pistol magazines are an excellent choice for home defense use. When I go to bed for the night, I swap out the standard magazine for an extended one before putting it on the nightstand. Since I don't wear a gunbelt to bed, in the event that something happens in the middle of the night, I'm not going to have a spare magazine on me. I'll need to make do with whatever is in the gun, so it makes sense to have as many rounds in the gun as possible.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I would never accuse you of “dancing in the blood”. The reality we face is that the media’s, the legislator’s, and the public’s interests are peaked after a national tragedy like this. They turn the spotlight on gun control groups to hear what they have to say. So now is your time, just be careful what you say now that they are listening. Accuracy and honesty will go a long way.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Japete,

    Your understanding of things is a little mixed up. It's called a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs. Because of this it is required that the government demonstrate that any gun law pass scrutiny. There are various levels of scrutiny and the level of protection the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms is given is still somewhat ambiguous. But basically it is up to the the advocates of a restriction on the right to keep and bear arms that they need the law. It's not up to the defenders of the right to demonstrate they need the freedom the constitution guarantees.

    In other words it is not within the power of our government to "allow" the sale of products related to the right to keep and bear arms. The government must demonstrate they have both the authority and the need to restrict them.

    Even if you can demonstrate the government has the authority you are going to be hard pressed to demonstrate the need to restrict standard capacity magazines. I have put together a little video to explain why such a restriction actually does harm with near zero potential for good: http://bit.ly/f2C8Vl.

    And in case you haven't heard anyone other than the NRA say something about 30 round magazines (and I don't think they have said anything either), I think 30 round magazines are a good idea in some situations. I have several of them for some of my guns. And I have more magazines than I can easily count that are of capacity greater than 10.

    If there weren't a substantial number of people that thought that then there wouldn't be a market for them and they would only exist as novelties, engineering prototypes, and museums of failed products. Since they are quite common there must be a large number of people that disagree with your desire to ban them.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Palin just keeps digging deeper, doesn't she?

    I agree that common sense legislation is needed. I have also found that gun owners usually agree with most of what I suggest and what the gun control movement proposes, once they get past the slogans of the NRA (things like closing the gun show loophole, or requiring at least some level of training before purchase).

    ReplyDelete
  8. Wow- is that in case 20 people at once try to break into your house?

    ReplyDelete
  9. TS- I will say the same to you all. I keep all of the comments here and you all are not reading some of the worst ones because I am not publishing them. I say to my readers- be careful what you write. People are watching.

    ReplyDelete
  10. No Joe, I am not at all mixed up. I believe what I wrote. Most in the public also believe it after this shooting especially. Your video only indicates to me that you must expect to be in some situation where you will need to fire off a lot of bullets in case you intend to shoot a lot of people. I very much doubt that you will need to do that in a situation of self defense. You are the one who is mixed up. Because I don't agree with you does not make me mixed up. It just makes me someone with an opinion different from your own. It won't do anything for the discussion, which you don't want to have about this one, to call me mixed up or anyone else who disagrees with you. I will disagree and I won't say you are mixed up again if you stop saying it about me. O.K.?

    ReplyDelete
  11. But Baldr, that would be reasonable gun owners who are not commenting on this blog. Those are the ones I mostly talk to as well. It makes me feel sane to know that most gun owners agree with me.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Wow- is that in case 20 people at once try to break into your house?"

    In real life, unlike on TV and in the movies, a single shot from a pistol does not instantly incapacitate an attacker. The human body is remarkably resilient and some attackers are very determined. Most firearms instructors, myself included, are now teaching students to shoot an assailant 4-5 times in the chest and if that doesn't stop him, shoot him in the face until he does stop his assault. Given that most home invasions involve multiple attackers, using an extended magazine is not unreasonable in the least.

    ReplyDelete
  13. You do realize that any time your organization starts pushing for more gun control, it just pushes up gun sales, right? It's happening right now, and people have even been stockpiling the same 33-round magazines (not clips btw) used by the shooter. I secretly believe the Brady Bunch are all heavily invested in the firearms industry.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Well if they were, they would be a lot richer than they are right now!!!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Chris- " Given that most home invasions involve multiple attackers, using an extended magazine is not unreasonable in the least. " Really? You just don't hear too much about multiple people breaking into people's homes nor have I ever heard of anyone defending themselves with a semi automatic with 30 rounds fired. I think you guys are just trying valiantly to defend this ammunition clip. In the end, you may win the fight over this one because your buddies are too afraid of you to challenge you, but you have not won the basic argument that it is necesaary.

    ReplyDelete
  16. " You just don't hear too much about multiple people breaking into people's homes nor have I ever heard of anyone defending themselves with a semi automatic with 30 rounds fired."

    This one made the national news rounds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_rz2wBYin4

    While it's true that the rounds fired in defense did not equate to 30, had the assailants not fled immediately, even you couldn't argue that a 30 round magazine would have been unreasonable.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I know this comment won't make friends on either side of the argument, but would it be possible to declare a truce and make no attempt whatsoever to introduce any new legislation, limit or ban, but rather focus on the existing laws and procedures and seek to understand why the failed and what can be done to better enforce the current laws?

    If the sheriff, military or college he was kicked out of had followed through, rather than washing their hands of him this would not have happened.

    ReplyDelete
  18. And 30 rounds would have done what again in this case? It seems like the gun he had worked just fine. He scared off the guys and didn't even kill them. No lives taken and he stopped the crime. They won't come back to his house again. Why do you think the suspects were firing immediately when they ran out of their car? Did they know the homeowner? I thought that was curious.

    ReplyDelete
  19. So will you agree to a ban that doesn't exempt police officers? If they have no use for self-defense than clearly police, who carry guns to defend themselves just like everyone else, do not need 30 rounds magazines either.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "His thesis is that the insistence that government is out to take things away or out to do grievous harm to people makes them feel paranoid and suspicious of those who represent government."

    And the Brady Campaign's plan is to validate those paranoid peoples paranoia by banning high capacity magazines and "assault weapons"?

    ReplyDelete
  21. You don't stop criminals by limiting the amount of ammunition law-abiding people can have in their guns. If you want to propose limits on the amount of ammunition criminals can have in their guns, I don't think anyone would have a problem. Of course, we all know that criminals ignore the law, so what's the point, if not to restrict law-abiding gun owners?

    For all the talk about wanting to keep guns from criminals, I don't think I've EVER heard the Brady Bunch propose a law that targets criminals and not the law-abiding. You want to blanket laws that affect the law abiding and criminals alike. THIS is why you fail. Go after the criminals instead of all gun owners, and we won't put up such a fight. But since you're against guns and not criminals, this doesn't fit your agenda.

    This is why you will lose this battle. Instead of working with law-abiding gun owners, you make us zealously opposed to your every move. And whenever someone offers you this sort of advice or anything else you don't want to hear, you just blow it off and convince yourself that you're right and that we're unreasonable. Listen, law-abiding gun owners want to reduce crime. We also don't want our rights infringed in the process. The things your organization does little if anything to stop crime, and does infringe our rights. Instead of trying to be our allies (you see how powerful the NRA is, right?), you constantly put us on the defensive. And the result is that you're marginalized and lives that could have been saved by our collective efforts aren't. Oh, and you scare people into buying more guns. How does ANY of this align with your mission statement again?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Sebastian, as you know, I don't make deals on my blog in exchange for something else. I am not in a position to do that here nor will I because then you will all publish my comments on your blog thinking that I represent all gun violence prevention advocates and what we will or will not support. Having said that, there are still so many of the guns and ammunition clips out there, as one of your own mentioned, that I'm sure the police will still be attacked and outgunned by the street thugs or the nut cases like Poplawski from Pittsburgh who ambushed and killed 3 police officers. Why don't you ask law enforcement what they would think about your proposal? I think you know what the answer would be so I am wondering why you bothered to ask it of me. Is this just another "gotcha" moment?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Aztec- I don't get how you get from your first point to the conclusion you draw, above.

    ReplyDelete
  24. anon- these are the same old tired arguments I have referred to. Come up with something else.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I'm really not trying to trap you, and understand your reluctance not to speak of specific policy prescriptions. I'm just trying to offer a context for thinking about "Have we heard anyone but the NRA say it's a good idea to allow the sale of ammunition clips that hold more than 30 bullets?"

    In order to buy law enforcement acquiescence on these magazine bans, they have contained exceptions for law enforcement. Now perhaps you can say it's only useful to SWAT teams, and such, but really, there are ways to craft regulations to deal with that issue. It has always been a blanket exemption. Off duty cops were permitted to acquire, possess, and carry restricted 15 round Glock 19 magazines during the ban.

    Why is that? If they are only useful for offense and attack, why do police, who are defensively oriented in their tactics, need them at all? The answer is they are very useful for self-defense situations. They may be rare situations, but police don't want to gamble with their lives. We don't either. My Glock 19 can carry 16 rounds by design. There's absolutely no reason to pick an arbitrary and capricious limit as to magazine capacity. If you're going to do it on the rationalization that you have chosen, that they aren't useful for self-defense, then the police don't need an exemption.

    But they will insist on one? Why? Why can't you tell the police what they do and don't need? But you can tell me?

    ReplyDelete
  26. "Aztec- I don't get how you get from your first point to the conclusion you draw, above."

    Well, you said the insistence that the government is going to take things away makes people paranoid.

    The Brady Campaign validates that paranoia when they advocate taking away the ability to buy high capacity magazines and "assault weapons". The proof is in the increased sale of Glock pistols and high capacity magazines.

    ReplyDelete
  27. If it is constitutionally OK to ban 30 round magazines, would it be OK to ban 3 round magazines? Where is the constitutionally acceptable limit?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Japete,
    Joe Huffman was absolutely correct in assuming that you don't understand the term "Bill of Rights, as opposed to Bill of Needs".
    You are correct, just because you don't agree with Joe doesn't make you mixed up, just as, just because I don't agree with you doesn't make me "mixed up". The difference being I have the Bill of Rights to back up my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  29. jdege mentioned "vile behaviour," attributing it to "Klugman, et al." I suppose he's referring to Paul Krugman in that purposefully misspelled way. The vile behaviour being blaming the rhetoric of the right.

    First of all, no one is saying that's the only thing to blame. Don't forget many of us also blame the availability of guns to mentally ill people. But the other thing is, the "et al" number in the hundreds, as anyone surfing the internet these days well knows. Some of them are well-respected even moderate voices, they're not all rabid lefties.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Sebastian- thank you for coming back with your reasonable remark. "Off duty cops were permitted to acquire, possess, and carry restricted 15 round Glock 19 magazines during the ban." So I would not support that exception actually. But self defense for law enforcement who are putting their lives on the line every time they go to work is different than self defense for home owners. Shootings of police officers have increased. They are the ones who may actually face a situation where they are outgunned on the streets while it would be more rare for a homeowner to face the same. And, as long as these types of magazines are available to all in gun shops and gun shows, they are available to those who should not have them. I am suggesting that you guys can actually do without them for self defense. You have other guns you can use for self defense. Your arguments about NEEDING these magazines for your own self defense are not making much traction in the public discourse.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Yes Aztec- the fact that the mere mention of the large capacity magazines being unnecessary in our society has driven the sale of them and the Glock 19s for fear of a ban. The guns will be very unlikely to be banned given the Supreme Court decision. Watch for my next post to see why it's perfectly O.K to ban the magazines, though. Paranoia comes from the belief on your side that people like me are going to ban guns. If you guys keep resisting reasonable measures after the tragedy that occurred on Saturday, you are doing your cause no good. Most people find your arguments to be unreasonable given what just happened. I would invite you to join in the solution to this rather than your bellicose resistance to doing the right thing. Gun owners would be seen in an entirely different light.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Come on Sevesteen- here is the prime example of the paranoia on which you guys dine every day. You know that will not happen. You are being unreasonable to resist reasonable restrictions on the 30 round magazines for fear that a 3 round magazine would then also be banned. Until you hear us say that, you have nothing to fear.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Why does the Bill of Rights support you any more than it supports me grey beard?

    ReplyDelete
  34. "Until you hear us say that, you have nothing to fear."

    So does that mean it is coming and you just haven't said it yet? :)

    All kidding aside. Lets look at what the debate has gone to just since Saturday. As soon as it happened, your side began the "we need to ban these 30 round magazines". Your (and by "your" I mean a generalized gun control lobby not necessarily you personally) side said that the standard 15 round mags were sufficient. Now your side is back to the "only need 10 rounds" argument.

    As far as the slippery slope has slid in just a few days, I don't think Sevesteen's remark can be dismissed as paranoid as unlikely as it would be.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I believe 10 is what it was during the AWB. I'm sure that is where that is coming from. You guys make the mistake of hanging on every word said by those from my side and assuming that is what it will be. We all know there is a poltical reality here. Let's look at the larger picture here and then come to some agreement. Don't parse every single word said. Thoughtful discussion can occur if people don't go "ballistic" every time someone from my side of the issue says something in public. Take it easy. We are not going to take away things you guys need- maybe a few things you want but perhaps just won't have given what's going on here. Even legal scholars now agree with me. Think about that for a minute.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "But self defense for law enforcement who are putting their lives on the line every time they go to work is different than self defense for home owners."

    We don't own guns to protect ourselves from Fred Flintstone. The same criminals the police deal with are the same criminals preying on society as a whole. Thus, it would seem to suggest that whatever police find useful for self-defense the general populace would as well. I'll even, for the sake of argument, suggest this doesn't have to cover unusual police weapons. But if the "arm" in question is part of ordinary police equipment, I think it's hard to say it doesn't have utility for self-defense and should be outside the scope of Second Amendment protections.

    Police rarely, if ever, have to go through a second magazine. The reason police, generally speaking, aren't going to accept a ban without exceptions is because they don't want to be needlessly neutered. Their guns are made to carry more than ten rounds, so the additional burden of doing so is very low, even if it would only come into play in a very low probability event. It seems to me civilians deserve the same courtesy of being able to make that choice.

    Ten rounds is from the original AWB. Early proposals were to limit to five rounds. Ten was the compromise. Some states, like New Jersey, have their limit set at fifteen. Maryland limits to 20, but Maryland only prohibits the sale of greater than 20 round magazines, rather than possession. Marylanders can legally go out of state and buy larger magazines and bring them back. All other states, I believe, are 10. The number is arbitrary. People like nice round numbers, and we count with our hands, so it's usually some multiple of five.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "You just don't hear too much about multiple people breaking into people's homes"

    Really? Have you tried google news? Just do a simple search for "home invasion." You'll find the norm is nearly always multiple people.

    Here I'll make it easy. 5510 results
    http://www.google.com/search?q=home+invasion&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=home+invasion&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=8GT&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=ivnsub&source=lnms&tbs=nws:1&ei=u0wvTbW1Js3pgQfxte1a&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&ved=0CBQQ_AU&fp=b07f551f8262d809

    ReplyDelete
  38. When I perused these, I found that some of the articles were about only one intruder and some about more than 1. Did I say NEVER?. No- I said RARE and that is what it is. You guys continue to pick away at the small details. You wouldn't need a 30 round clip for even these. You could do just as well with a shotgun which many police officers will tell you is a pretty affective weapon in burgalaries. You have once again missed my point and are only wanting to pick a fight. More people are shot by people who should not have high capacity ammunition clips and semi automatic weapons than are saved by having one in the home.

    ReplyDelete
  39. "You wouldn't need a 30 round clip for even these."

    What I need or don't need isn't any of your business.

    I can't express it any more simply than that.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Well sir, it just became our business. When someone with a 30 round clip kills federal employees and innocent people, suddenly, it is the business of the country who can carry these things and if they should be sold.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Dear readers- please check out this link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/10-us-mass-shootings-invo_b_808603.html#s222832&title=Hartford_Distributors

    ReplyDelete
  42. Try this one:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

    Julio González murdered 87 people, with two matches and $1 of gas.

    The idea that you can create safety by legislating restrictions on inanimate objects is not just wrong, it's pathological.

    ReplyDelete
  43. So what's the point of sending me this one again? People die from all kinds of things. The fact remains that right now they are dying in much larger number from guns than any other weapons. You can try to distract from the idea that guns are dangerous by saying fires are dangerous. I don't disagree. But come on. This is a very rare thing. And then there is this enjoinder to the article: " This article needs additional citations for verification."

    ReplyDelete
  44. People are dangerous, and no amount of yammering about inanimate objects is going to change that.

    ReplyDelete
  45. jdege said in that libertarian, isolationist kinda way, "What I need or don't need isn't any of your business.

    I can't express it any more simply than that."


    Of course it becomes my business when you decide to shoot up the mall while I'm shopping. Then it becomes my business.

    ReplyDelete
  46. MikeB302000,

    Yes and when someone decides to shoot up the mall while you are shopping, what is your response going to be?

    To run and hide? To call 911? To scream at the person he is in trouble for violating the Mall's No Carry policy that leaves everyone defenseless?

    We already have laws against shooting up the mall -- hasn't stopped people from doing it.

    We already have laws against murder -- hasn't stopped people from doing it.

    We already have laws against people illegally owning firearms -- hasn't stopped people from doing it.

    You know what does stop or end them quicker? Other people, even average citizens, with firearms defending themselves.

    So are you saying that when people break the law it becomes our business?

    ReplyDelete
  47. I will answer that. In case you hadn't noticed, the very public shootings in a very public space with an attempt on the life of a Congresswoman and the deaths of 6 innocent people have become the business of the entire country if not the world.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Anonymous (Bob S.), The armed citizen stopping a shooting is mainly a figment of your imagination. You live in a fantasy world, everyone knows it.

    ReplyDelete