Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Doctor shoots armed patient in Philly hospital: A gun rights case is born
Christian Science Monitor ^ | July 25, 2014 | Patrik Jonsson

Posted on 07/26/2014 6:42:46 AM PDT by Innovative

Psychiatrist Lee Silverman worked in a gun-free hospital, but pulled out a gun in his desk to subdue an armed patient, who had just shot his caseworker. The case renews the issue: Should doctors and teachers be armed?

A mental-health caseworker is dead and a doctor and his patient wounded after a bizarre gunfight at a gun-free-zoned hospital in Yeadon, Pa., near Philadelphia, Thursday. As police prepare murder charges against the wounded patient, focus is shifting to the gun-toting psychiatrist who stopped the mayhem, likely saving other lives.

(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; armedcitizen; banglist; guncontrol; gunfreezones; secondamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last
How many others would the deranged armed patient would have shot if the doctor hadn't had a gun to stop her?

Then many would blame the guns, again, for the possible massacre.

1 posted on 07/26/2014 6:42:47 AM PDT by Innovative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Innovative

Heard this discussed last night on the radio. A real lesson to remember. Bookmarked.

The mental patient might have shot up a lot of people, the doctor had a gun, the patient killed one person sadly, the doc was wounded but he was armed as well.


2 posted on 07/26/2014 6:44:39 AM PDT by BeadCounter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

“Whether the hospital takes administrative action against Silverman for carrying a gun to work will be closely watched by those involved in America’s febrile gun debate.”

If this is even a question — that is a sad commentary — the doctor should get a medal for saving many lives.


3 posted on 07/26/2014 6:44:53 AM PDT by Innovative ("Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

Classic scenario Justice vs. Law.


4 posted on 07/26/2014 6:47:11 AM PDT by ImJustAnotherOkie (zerogottago)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

Well, they have a right to make rules.

However, to be fair, just give him a slap on the wrist at worst.

This is where “judgement” comes in, not “by the book”. Which probably doesn’t give details anyway.


5 posted on 07/26/2014 6:49:33 AM PDT by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue./Federal-run medical care is as good as state-run DMVs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Innovative
I am a strong advocate of both the RKBA and property rights. A property owner/employer does have a right to allow or disallow employees and customers to be armed on their property.

Having said that, all rights are coupled with responsibilities, and if a property owner is going to disallow his employees, customers and guests the means of protecting themselves, they incur an obligation to protect each and every one of them. I think an easy solution is to allow the employer to make the rules permitting or not permitting lawful firearm ownership on their property, but should they choose to bar firearms, knives, pepper spray, etc. they assume both corporate and personal liability for persons injured or killed as a result of their decision to disarm.

6 posted on 07/26/2014 6:52:00 AM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Qui me amat, amat et canem meum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

There can be no reasonable argument made that guns in law abiding citizens hands should be infringed.

Disregarding the occasional accident, 99 times out of 100 good things happen. Criminals and documented Crazies, 99 times out of 100 bad things happen. The solution is obvious.


7 posted on 07/26/2014 6:54:56 AM PDT by ImJustAnotherOkie (zerogottago)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ImJustAnotherOkie

Not to mention, that criminals don’t pay attention to the law prohibiting them from carrying a gun...


8 posted on 07/26/2014 7:01:30 AM PDT by Innovative ("Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

A very important note in the article is how the police strongly supported the psychiatrist in defending himself and others.

Just 10 or more year ago, police would uniformly parrot the statement that citizens “shouldn’t take the law into their own hands by defending themselves, that they should instead always call the police.” Which in retrospect, is obviously wrong.

Many police were initially dead set against an armed public, yet today, having seen what happens with an armed public, they are some of the strongest advocates of having an armed citizenry.

This is because, more and more, the police are seeing with their own eyes that the armed citizenry are very effective in reducing crime, most of the time not needing to fire their guns. In turn, this is a huge help to the police, making their jobs easier, and many times, providing them quick backup when their lives are at risk.

Likewise, the police notice that in gun liberty areas, it is becoming so hard to be a criminal that a lot of criminals are either quitting, or moving to crimes far less likely for them to get shot. Criminals no longer just have to keep watch for police, they have to be afraid of *everyone*.

What’s not to like?

As an aside, there is an irony here that I haven’t heard mentioned. When police are on duty in a gun liberty area, they know where they stand. But they also know that when they enter a gun-free zone, that potential armed civilian backup isn’t there. That gun-free zone might *look* safer, but it is more dangerous.


9 posted on 07/26/2014 7:03:11 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy ("Don't compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative." -Obama, 09-24-11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

Doctors yes; teachers.... it depends.


10 posted on 07/26/2014 7:05:05 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Innovative
gun-toting

In my experience this adjective is usually indicates a strong anti-second Amendment point of view.

11 posted on 07/26/2014 7:06:14 AM PDT by denydenydeny ("World History is not full of good governments, or of good voters either "--P.J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine
Doctors yes; teachers.... it depends.

Teachers yes: "educators"?....HELL NO!

12 posted on 07/26/2014 7:08:05 AM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (Celebrate "Republicans Freed the Slaves" Month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: the OlLine Rebel

Not saying to ‘make rules’ is right nor wrong, but to deny someone their 2nd A. Rights, does such an entity then not make security their responsibility?

Course, using that same logic, I haven’t seen anyone sue the State/Fed gov’t for creating fish-in-a-barrel ala gov’t indoctrination...Oops, ‘schools’


13 posted on 07/26/2014 7:10:35 AM PDT by i_robot73 (Give me one example and I will show where gov't is the root of the problem(s).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

***Doctors yes; teachers.... it depends.***

I remember some students, 55 years ago, who felt their purpose in life was to drive the teachers to the brink of sanity.


14 posted on 07/26/2014 7:11:35 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Sometimes you need more than seven rounds, Much more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ImJustAnotherOkie
Disregarding the occasional accident, 99 times out of 100 good things happen. Criminals and documented Crazies, 99 times out of 100 bad things happen. The solution is obvious.

QED, Democrats should not be allowed to have guns.

15 posted on 07/26/2014 7:24:27 AM PDT by Sooth2222 ("Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself." M.Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack
A property owner/employer does have a right to allow or disallow employees and customers to be armed on their property.

I can point out where I have the right to keep and bear arms recognized by the Constitution. Where in the constitution is the right for property owners and employers to remove other constitutionally guaranteed rights? What other rights can they forbid?

16 posted on 07/26/2014 7:28:36 AM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine
“Doctors yes; teachers.... it depends”

Most teachers I know shouldn't be trusted with any potentially dangerous device.

17 posted on 07/26/2014 7:33:58 AM PDT by CrazyIvan (I lost my phased plasma rifle in a tragic hovercraft accident.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Durus
"I can point out where I have the right to keep and bear arms recognized by the Constitution. Where in the constitution is the right for property owners and employers to remove other constitutionally guaranteed rights? What other rights can they forbid?'

The Constitution forbids government from restricting rights. A property owner can set virtually any rule he or she wants to grant access to their property. Go to work in your underwear and a pair of flip-flops and tell your boss you're just exercising your freedom of speech. Come back and tell me how that works out for you...

18 posted on 07/26/2014 7:34:51 AM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Qui me amat, amat et canem meum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

The article says the doctor crouched behind his desk and “fetched” his gun. It doesn’t sound like it was on his person, but maybe in a desk drawer?

Since the man has a right to keep and bear arms, and since the situation proved for anyone why that is, I can’t see him violating anything more than a no-gun zone established by a hospital. I’m sure that’s backed up by law of some kind, but what if it’s a ‘no carry’ zone and not a ‘no gun’ zone?

My sense then is that he wasn’t armed, in the classic sense of the word. I’ve never heard the word “fetched” be used about one who took a gun out of a holster or a pocket.

I don’t know what the technicality would be, but this could be a technicality in favor of the doctor, if the gun really was in a desk drawer.


19 posted on 07/26/2014 7:35:43 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Durus
"I can point out where I have the right to keep and bear arms recognized by the Constitution. Where in the constitution is the right for property owners and employers to remove other constitutionally guaranteed rights?"

Say a group of ne'er-do-wells sets up a satanic black mass in your front yard. When it's done, they break out in a spontaneous Obama rally with signs and t-shirts proclaiming the virtues of "the won." They can point out where they have a freedom of religion and right to political speech.

20 posted on 07/26/2014 7:48:17 AM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Qui me amat, amat et canem meum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I can’t see him violating anything more than a no-gun zone established by a hospital

He's going to be fired, without a doubt.

21 posted on 07/26/2014 7:50:08 AM PDT by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise. Hat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: i_robot73

The situations are quite different, because of Sovereign Immunity on behalf of the government, but not a private person/company.


22 posted on 07/26/2014 7:55:37 AM PDT by expat2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ImJustAnotherOkie

A lot those ‘accidents’ are actually suicides.


23 posted on 07/26/2014 7:56:50 AM PDT by expat2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack
You are right, where was security to ensure their safety? The Doctor knew to
bring a gun probably because he knew that Security there was being
conducted by the resident psychologist most likely. The Doc took action
and saved lives. Good. The wounded and Victims of this should sue the hospital.
24 posted on 07/26/2014 7:57:52 AM PDT by MaxMax (Pay Attention and you'll be pissed off too! FIRE BOEHNER, NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: xzins

On the other hand, keeping a gun in an unlocked desk drawer has its own legal hazards.....


25 posted on 07/26/2014 7:58:36 AM PDT by expat2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MaxMax
"The wounded and Victims of this should sue the hospital."

Agreed...but moreover, my recommendation is for corporate and personal liability. Whatever administrators, board members, CEO, etc. who are responsible for the "no guns" policy should be considered personally and individually as tortfeasors for their role in the injuries and death.

26 posted on 07/26/2014 8:02:30 AM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Qui me amat, amat et canem meum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: expat2

No one said it was unlocked, but it sounded to me that he “fetched” it pretty quickly. My experience as a counselor is that our desks had locks on all the drawers whether we used them or not. Can’t have people viewing notes, files, etc. So, I wouldn’t be surprised if the drawers all had locks....whether locked at that time or not.


27 posted on 07/26/2014 8:03:56 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: xzins

The key may have been in the drawer lock.That is how I would secure something confidential that needed to be accessed quickly.Take the key with me when not in the office.

Doctor may be fired but he is alive to find another job.

It oftens requires a good person with a gun to stop the bad person .The lieberals just don’t want to accept that there are good people. The lieberals believe everyone is going to act on selfish and immature impulses as lieberals do.


28 posted on 07/26/2014 8:22:11 AM PDT by hoosierham (Freedom isn't free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

I can choose to patronize a “gun free” restaurant, the owner cannot make it safe. I know it’s unsafe when I enter, if there’s a problem I don’t believe I have any recourse with the restaurant. I choose not to patronize “gun free” businesses. In the case of hospitals, medical offices, etc., in most of the country if not all these places are legally “gun free zones”. You cannot protect yourself and they cannot protect you and if something happens you have no recourse. You cannot simply go down the street to the next medical center where you will find a firearms welcome sign. I’m for abolishing gun free zones or as they have here “Weapons free Zones”, I guess they’re afraid I’d bring my hammer but if I did we’d all be more safe.


29 posted on 07/26/2014 8:37:24 AM PDT by duffee (NO poll tax, NO tax on firearms, ammunition or gun safes. NO gun free zones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: duffee
"I’m for abolishing gun free zones or as they have here “Weapons free Zones”

I think government imposed/declared gun free zones are simply un-Constitutional. Like you, I avoid private entities that declare them, but I still think the property owners have the right to do with their property as they see fit, and their patrons or visitors can exercise their right of association as they see fit.

30 posted on 07/26/2014 8:46:35 AM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Qui me amat, amat et canem meum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: duffee

In gun free zones in places like hospitals where there is a security force that is armed, their rules must be written in a way to allow at least some guns. They would also have to define who could and could not have a gun...security, police, and governmental agents, I suppose, would be the limits of it. Sometimes, though, when they write those rules up, there are holes in the write-up.


31 posted on 07/26/2014 9:00:46 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I think the hospital’s regulation should be waived for staff who deal routinely with mentally-unstable patents. But there would still be the old tension between having the gun available and keeping it safe. Concealed carry is probably the best solution to that.


32 posted on 07/26/2014 9:04:09 AM PDT by expat2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

>Should doctors and teachers be armed?<

.
Why only doctors and teachers?

Are they more qualified to go armed than law-abiding citizens with concealed handgun permits?


33 posted on 07/26/2014 9:04:16 AM PDT by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expat2
Concealed carry is probably the best solution to that.

I pretty much agree with that. There's always the danger of someone relieving you of your gun, but generally, it's useless if locked in a drawer or a locker.

34 posted on 07/26/2014 9:16:50 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

Thea doctor should have had the common decency to just die rather than embarass his betters.


35 posted on 07/26/2014 9:18:13 AM PDT by zeugma (It is time for us to start playing cowboys and muslims for real now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CrazyIvan
Most teachers I know shouldn't be trusted with any potentially dangerous device.

I agree, but there are exceptions. My kids had a HS student adviser who thought he might be the only person in Massachusetts who was a member of both the NEA and the NRA, although he kept the stickers off of his car.

But, I've seen a lot of teachers--who after all, are mostly knee-jerk liberals--who are far too irresponsible to be trusted with deadly force.

36 posted on 07/26/2014 9:55:09 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

I ran the Fire, Safety & Security Department At Philadelphia State Hospital (Byberry) until it shut down. The liberals tried to hang some of my Security Officers (all retired PHilly Police officers) for merely defending themselves by punching or pinning the patients. Some of those libs would have a shit fit over this. BTW, if they hadn’t closed down that snake pit, this may not have happened.


37 posted on 07/26/2014 10:11:46 AM PDT by Safetgiver ( Islam makes barbarism look genteel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

I don’t know about this being a, “Gun rights case being born,” but it does open up a few questions.
Should an employer, if he chooses to make his/her business a gun free zone, be responsible for the safety of all employees?
Not only while at the workplace, but en route to and from it as well. What if I’m on my way home from or to work, while stopped at a red light, and I get carjacked and shot? If my employer had allowed me to carry, it might have ended differently.
Lots of gun owners feel that it’s irresponsible to leave a firearm unattended in their vehicle for fear that it could get stolen. Plus, the business property could ALSO include the parking lot. What then?
With the economy being as horrid as it is, I doubt that anyone wants to become the first test case for this issue.


38 posted on 07/26/2014 10:29:06 AM PDT by RandallFlagg (Uninstall Fascist Firefox. Get Pale Moon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RandallFlagg

“Lots of gun owners feel that it’s irresponsible to leave a firearm unattended in their vehicle for fear that it could get stolen. Plus, the business property could ALSO include the parking lot. What then?”

Many times the business property does include the parking lot. What then? You’re screwed. Which is why these laws were passed in the first place. To disarm the populace.

Alabama actually passed a law that, roughly stated, prohibited businesses from prohibiting guns in their parking lots as long as the guns were out of sight and the vehicle was locked. Lots of handwringing about how “blood would run in the streets” and other non-sense.

Sheriffs were against it. Yep. In the supposedly “most Conservative state” the Sheriffs were against my right to keep and bear arms and self defense. Didn’t surprise me at all as I have had a few dealings with local Sheriff depts. over the years.


39 posted on 07/26/2014 11:10:03 AM PDT by saleman (?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: xzins; All

It may well have been in a bag that the Doctor carried with him.


40 posted on 07/26/2014 11:20:53 AM PDT by marktwain (The old media must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

A few months ago, a young man knifed a bunch of people in a local hospital where his mother was being treated. He was insane and thought they were killing his mother.

I can’t recall how many died. I guess it didn’t make national news because it didn’t involve a “nasty, dangerous gun.”


41 posted on 07/26/2014 11:36:17 AM PDT by Rides_A_Red_Horse (Why do you need a fire extinguisher when you can call the fire department?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

They are trespassing. They do not have a constitutional right to trespass and can be removed.


42 posted on 07/26/2014 12:32:46 PM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack
The Constitution, in part, recognizes mans natural rights which are not dependent on government and are not void because someone is on your property. You can ask someone to leave your property but you can't remove their rights. I could go into work with flip flops and underwear and I would probably be asked to leave and not come back unless I visited a psychiatrist, (unless I suddenly claimed to be gay, but I'm not sure they would buy that drastic of a change) regardless they could not hold me and force me to dress in the manner they chose simply because I am employed by them.

In the spirit of your challenge I suggest you put a sign on your place of business/property line that says "No Blacks, No Irish, and No Muslims allowed" and see what happens.

43 posted on 07/26/2014 12:47:28 PM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: xzins

In the state of Washington, by state law you can’t carry in a court room, school, or bar. Any other place that has a sign and you get caught it is a matter of them asking you to leave. If you refuse to leave, then it gets treated as trespassing.

There was an odd letter written after the Sandy Hook massacre. It was in the form of a letter written to one of the dead teachers. Chastising her for not having a gun on her to protect her children. Went on about how “natural” or God-given rules are greater than some rule that man (the school) sets. It was too harsh in my opinion (the teacher was dead), but it does bring up the point that sometimes man’s rules are not just.

I always have a struggle picking my kids up from school. Bring the gun, or risk having my CCW revoked forever. So far I leave my gun at home.


44 posted on 07/26/2014 1:00:41 PM PDT by 21twelve (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2185147/posts 2013 is 1933 REBORN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

Honestly, anyone who thinks someone who used a gun to save lives should be punished hasn’t got a shred of logic in them to make them worth debating.


45 posted on 07/26/2014 2:55:17 PM PDT by RWB Patriot ("My ability is a value that must be earned and I don't recognize anyone's need as a claim on me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve

When my Sons went to public school, I’d take my gun to pick them up and drop them off. I’d just stay off of the property. Never had an issue.

What teachers/staff knew me knew I did it, and appreciated it, too.


46 posted on 07/26/2014 4:10:29 PM PDT by RandallFlagg (Uninstall Fascist Firefox. Get Pale Moon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Definitely. Another good possibility.


47 posted on 07/26/2014 4:12:47 PM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve

What is the rule about a gun in the trunk of your car separated from your ammunition and being on school grounds?

Is that acceptably transporting but at the same time unarmed?


48 posted on 07/26/2014 4:14:41 PM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: xzins

There are both Federal and State laws.

If the firearm is unloaded and locked up, I think it would be alright under Federal law.

State laws vary considerably.


49 posted on 07/26/2014 5:00:05 PM PDT by marktwain (The old media must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Durus
"They are trespassing. They do not have a constitutional right to trespass and can be removed."

Actually, you have made my point better than I could. The hypothetical devil worshippers/Obama campaigners on your lawn, while engaging in Constitutionally protected activities do not have the property owner's permission to practice their Constitutionally protected activities on his property, and therefore are trespassing. Similarly, when a property/business owner says effectively, "Persons carrying firearms are not allowed on this property," they are denying permission to such persons, and persons carrying firearms on such property are trespassing, although carrying a firearm is, like devil worship, or campaigning for Obama, a Constitionally protected activity.

50 posted on 07/26/2014 7:09:47 PM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Qui me amat, amat et canem meum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson