Perceptions of the Pentagon shooter

The Washington Post on Saturday carried two front page stories, side by side, on John Patrick Bedell, the man who shot and wounded two guards at the Pentagon before he was killed.  The one story, Pentagon shooter, others strike symbols of ‘power for the powerless’, framed the attack in terms of anti-government groups, such as the Tea Party movement and right-wing militias.   “Researchers who track violent groups see Bedell’s rampage as a distorted manifestation of the anti-Washington view that has driven the rise of right-wing militias.”

And yet, the accompanying news article describes a marijuana activist whom friends described as a “peacenik” known for his 9/11 denial and his online rants against George W. Bush. In other words, this mentally-disturbed 36-year-old was a creature of the left rather than of the right, despite the impression created by the feature story.

Yes, Bedell believed in wild conspiracy theories–maintaining that the government was taken over by a “coup” when JFK was assassinated and that it has been run by a sinister non-democratic cabal ever since–but such fantasies are commonplace on the hard left as well as the hard right.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Pete

    You don’t mean to imply that our news is slanted left, do you?

  • Pete

    You don’t mean to imply that our news is slanted left, do you?

  • John C

    Fox news would be pretty upset if you said their news was leftwing, Pete. “We deceive, you decide.”

  • John C

    Fox news would be pretty upset if you said their news was leftwing, Pete. “We deceive, you decide.”

  • Peter Leavitt

    To this day, the Left denies the reality that the Kennedy’s assassin, Oswald, was a hard-core member of the Left. This doesn’t fit with the Left’s stereotypical narrative of some sort of a Texan rightist from Dallas brought down the benighted leader of its Camelot.

  • Peter Leavitt

    To this day, the Left denies the reality that the Kennedy’s assassin, Oswald, was a hard-core member of the Left. This doesn’t fit with the Left’s stereotypical narrative of some sort of a Texan rightist from Dallas brought down the benighted leader of its Camelot.

  • Carl Vehse
  • Carl Vehse
  • Winston Smith

    Left and right are meaningless terms. Both the Big Government Left and the Big Government Right cherish and defend the status quo.

    I don’t know what was in Bedell’s head (other than lots of rage and residual THC), but I fear that he will be used as a broad brush to tar everyone who — in some cases, legitimately and responsibly — challenge the powers that be and attempt to expose wrongdoing.

    Whatever you may believe about the Kennedy assassination and 9/11, there ARE criminal conspiracies and shadowy alliances in Washington that do not have the people’s best interests at heart. Will anyone who tries to speak truth to power (rather than shooting it or flying a plane into it a la Joe Stack) now be labeled an extremist/lone wolf/domestic terrorist/enemy combatant?

  • Winston Smith

    Left and right are meaningless terms. Both the Big Government Left and the Big Government Right cherish and defend the status quo.

    I don’t know what was in Bedell’s head (other than lots of rage and residual THC), but I fear that he will be used as a broad brush to tar everyone who — in some cases, legitimately and responsibly — challenge the powers that be and attempt to expose wrongdoing.

    Whatever you may believe about the Kennedy assassination and 9/11, there ARE criminal conspiracies and shadowy alliances in Washington that do not have the people’s best interests at heart. Will anyone who tries to speak truth to power (rather than shooting it or flying a plane into it a la Joe Stack) now be labeled an extremist/lone wolf/domestic terrorist/enemy combatant?

  • WebMonk

    Conspiracy theories are certainly no stranger to the extremes of our political parties, but different conspiracy theories tend to congregate at each extreme.

    The “Left” conspiracies are the shadowy, evil-corporation, running the country from behind the scenes. The “Right” conspiracies tend toward the shadowy, evil-government running the country from behind the scenes. (and the UFO nuts are just all over the place) The deniers of 9/11 as terrorist attacks tend to congregate much more strongly in the “Right” extremist zones. The most widely held 9/11 views tend toward the idea that the shadowy, evil-government did it.

    Of course the “Left” conspiracy nuts tend to be glad to put blame onto Bush since he was a Republican, so you get an odd sort of joining of “opposites” in blaming Bush for 9/11. It’s sort of like the two extremes go so far that they begin to wrap back around to the other side and have met in the middle.

    But then, the hard-core conspiracy theorists are so far outside the Republican/Democrat classification that the associations are tenuous at best.

  • WebMonk

    Conspiracy theories are certainly no stranger to the extremes of our political parties, but different conspiracy theories tend to congregate at each extreme.

    The “Left” conspiracies are the shadowy, evil-corporation, running the country from behind the scenes. The “Right” conspiracies tend toward the shadowy, evil-government running the country from behind the scenes. (and the UFO nuts are just all over the place) The deniers of 9/11 as terrorist attacks tend to congregate much more strongly in the “Right” extremist zones. The most widely held 9/11 views tend toward the idea that the shadowy, evil-government did it.

    Of course the “Left” conspiracy nuts tend to be glad to put blame onto Bush since he was a Republican, so you get an odd sort of joining of “opposites” in blaming Bush for 9/11. It’s sort of like the two extremes go so far that they begin to wrap back around to the other side and have met in the middle.

    But then, the hard-core conspiracy theorists are so far outside the Republican/Democrat classification that the associations are tenuous at best.

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com/ John

    UFO nuts?! I am outraged. Everyone knows Obama is secretly an alien operating a shadow galaxy for the purpose of enslaving mankind and creating fresh meat for the borg. UFO nuts, indeed.

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com/ John

    UFO nuts?! I am outraged. Everyone knows Obama is secretly an alien operating a shadow galaxy for the purpose of enslaving mankind and creating fresh meat for the borg. UFO nuts, indeed.

  • WebMonk

    John, I was working for a conservative group a number of years ago and we got a most entertaining email.

    A person sent one of the organization’s lawyers an email letting us know that he knew we were just operating undercover to fight the aliens who were actually taking over the world. He appreciated that we had to put up a false front for the teeming masses of the unenlightened who didn’t know about the alien invasion, but wanted to let us know that he appreciated the work we were doing in opposing the alien invaders.

    That message was thoroughly enjoyed by everyone in the organization! I REALLY wish I had saved it.

  • WebMonk

    John, I was working for a conservative group a number of years ago and we got a most entertaining email.

    A person sent one of the organization’s lawyers an email letting us know that he knew we were just operating undercover to fight the aliens who were actually taking over the world. He appreciated that we had to put up a false front for the teeming masses of the unenlightened who didn’t know about the alien invasion, but wanted to let us know that he appreciated the work we were doing in opposing the alien invaders.

    That message was thoroughly enjoyed by everyone in the organization! I REALLY wish I had saved it.

  • Winston Smith

    Webmonk @6: “The “Left” conspiracies are the shadowy, evil-corporation, running the country from behind the scenes. The “Right” conspiracies tend toward the shadowy, evil-government running the country from behind the scenes. ”

    Yes, but the government and big business are so intertwined and interchangeable as to make the left-right paradigm irrelevant. Whether business controls government or vice versa, the net effect is that something vast and shadowy has effective control of the ordinary person’s life.

    Thankfully, God is sovereign over all — even over the shadowy powers behind both big business and big government.

  • Winston Smith

    Webmonk @6: “The “Left” conspiracies are the shadowy, evil-corporation, running the country from behind the scenes. The “Right” conspiracies tend toward the shadowy, evil-government running the country from behind the scenes. ”

    Yes, but the government and big business are so intertwined and interchangeable as to make the left-right paradigm irrelevant. Whether business controls government or vice versa, the net effect is that something vast and shadowy has effective control of the ordinary person’s life.

    Thankfully, God is sovereign over all — even over the shadowy powers behind both big business and big government.

  • http://www.lambert-blog.com Dave Lambert

    Andrew Jackson said, “The duty of government is to leave commerce to its own capital and credit as well as all other branches of business, protecting all in their legal pursuits, granting exclusive privileges to none.”

  • http://www.lambert-blog.com Dave Lambert

    Andrew Jackson said, “The duty of government is to leave commerce to its own capital and credit as well as all other branches of business, protecting all in their legal pursuits, granting exclusive privileges to none.”

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    It’s pretty pathetic to see people using a man’s mental illness to bolster their own partisan aims.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    It’s pretty pathetic to see people using a man’s mental illness to bolster their own partisan aims.

  • DonS

    To attempt to attach these nuts to either predominant political viewpoint is, at tODD says, pathetic, as well as exploitive. These people are almost always seriously mentally ill, typically paranoid, and do not have a cogent viewpoing about anything. I wish our media would simply report the news and quit with the political labels.

  • DonS

    To attempt to attach these nuts to either predominant political viewpoint is, at tODD says, pathetic, as well as exploitive. These people are almost always seriously mentally ill, typically paranoid, and do not have a cogent viewpoing about anything. I wish our media would simply report the news and quit with the political labels.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Yes, Don (@12), but it’s not just “our media” (which is a, um, rather broad way to refer to the article Veith linked to) that I take issue with. It’s not hard to find people outside the mainstream media — say, of a right-wing persuasion — attempting to make partisan hay out of this man’s mental illness. I hope you agree that’s equally pathetic, Don.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Yes, Don (@12), but it’s not just “our media” (which is a, um, rather broad way to refer to the article Veith linked to) that I take issue with. It’s not hard to find people outside the mainstream media — say, of a right-wing persuasion — attempting to make partisan hay out of this man’s mental illness. I hope you agree that’s equally pathetic, Don.

  • DonS

    tODD, I’m not following you. Dr. Veith linked to two articles, both from the Washington Post. As mainstream media as it gets, which is why I don’t understand your point. The second article seems like a pretty fair one, merely describing the disturbed shooter’s history, and noting that he had mixed-up views from both the left and right sides of the political spectrum. The first article launched into a diatribe from the Southern Poverty Law Center, a left-wing civil rights group that seems to be the “go-to” source for media for explaining how these violent nutjobs are all really right-wing extremists, coming out of the militia movement and haters of government. That was the unfair one. And it would be equally unfair if the claim was made that because he was a peacenik at one time, and smoked marijuana, that shows that left-wing politics leads to nutty violence.

    So, I think we agree in theory. I guess I’m confused why you are viewing these Post articles as of a “right-wing persuasion”.

  • DonS

    tODD, I’m not following you. Dr. Veith linked to two articles, both from the Washington Post. As mainstream media as it gets, which is why I don’t understand your point. The second article seems like a pretty fair one, merely describing the disturbed shooter’s history, and noting that he had mixed-up views from both the left and right sides of the political spectrum. The first article launched into a diatribe from the Southern Poverty Law Center, a left-wing civil rights group that seems to be the “go-to” source for media for explaining how these violent nutjobs are all really right-wing extremists, coming out of the militia movement and haters of government. That was the unfair one. And it would be equally unfair if the claim was made that because he was a peacenik at one time, and smoked marijuana, that shows that left-wing politics leads to nutty violence.

    So, I think we agree in theory. I guess I’m confused why you are viewing these Post articles as of a “right-wing persuasion”.

  • E-Raj

    What will be even more pathetic is when people of a left-wing persuasion capitalize on these recent acts of violence to advocate for more gun control. Just watch…this will probably heat up in the media just as the SCOTUS prepares to hear the upcoming gun case against the city of Chicago.

  • E-Raj

    What will be even more pathetic is when people of a left-wing persuasion capitalize on these recent acts of violence to advocate for more gun control. Just watch…this will probably heat up in the media just as the SCOTUS prepares to hear the upcoming gun case against the city of Chicago.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@14), really? Did you read my comment (@13)? Closely?

    Look, we both agree that second article, titled “Parents warned police of Pentagon shooter’s bizarre mental state” was pretty fair. So let’s ignore that one.

    And we can at least both agree that the sentence that Veith quoted from the first article was at best poorly written and at worst attempted to confuse Bedell with right-wing militias. So let’s ignore that.

    Now that you understand what I’m not talking about, let’s revisit what I did say: “It’s not hard to find people outside the mainstream media — say, of a right-wing persuasion — attempting to make partisan hay out of this man’s mental illness” (emphasis not in original). Yes, the quote from the Post painting Bedell as a right-winger was wrong, Don. But! It was also wrong when right-wingers attempted to paint Bedell as a left-winger. Do you agree? Would you like to find examples of that? You don’t have to look very far. It may have happened or been pointed to on the very Web page you’re reading!

    All you’ve done so far, Don, is point out the media’s wrongs. You’re good at that. Would you care to also note the wrongs of people on “your side” as well?

    Also, do you guys really think that only left-wingers smoke marijuana? That’s cute.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@14), really? Did you read my comment (@13)? Closely?

    Look, we both agree that second article, titled “Parents warned police of Pentagon shooter’s bizarre mental state” was pretty fair. So let’s ignore that one.

    And we can at least both agree that the sentence that Veith quoted from the first article was at best poorly written and at worst attempted to confuse Bedell with right-wing militias. So let’s ignore that.

    Now that you understand what I’m not talking about, let’s revisit what I did say: “It’s not hard to find people outside the mainstream media — say, of a right-wing persuasion — attempting to make partisan hay out of this man’s mental illness” (emphasis not in original). Yes, the quote from the Post painting Bedell as a right-winger was wrong, Don. But! It was also wrong when right-wingers attempted to paint Bedell as a left-winger. Do you agree? Would you like to find examples of that? You don’t have to look very far. It may have happened or been pointed to on the very Web page you’re reading!

    All you’ve done so far, Don, is point out the media’s wrongs. You’re good at that. Would you care to also note the wrongs of people on “your side” as well?

    Also, do you guys really think that only left-wingers smoke marijuana? That’s cute.

  • WebMonk

    E-Raj, the Supreme Court already heard the Chicago gun case, so this can’t be used to heat things up before they hear the case – they’ve already heard the case.

    Did you maybe mean to say it could heat up the media before the Supreme Court issues its decision on the case?

  • WebMonk

    E-Raj, the Supreme Court already heard the Chicago gun case, so this can’t be used to heat things up before they hear the case – they’ve already heard the case.

    Did you maybe mean to say it could heat up the media before the Supreme Court issues its decision on the case?

  • E-Raj

    WebMonk, I didn’t realize they’ve already heard the case. I thought it wasn’t going before the court until June, but I guess I didn’t understand the report. Perhaps June is when they plan to rule on it? Either way, it always irks me when the media use stories of random lunatics to try to advocate against law-abiding citizens’ rights. It’s so predictable.

  • E-Raj

    WebMonk, I didn’t realize they’ve already heard the case. I thought it wasn’t going before the court until June, but I guess I didn’t understand the report. Perhaps June is when they plan to rule on it? Either way, it always irks me when the media use stories of random lunatics to try to advocate against law-abiding citizens’ rights. It’s so predictable.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 16: OK. So if I understand you correctly, you were not referring to the linked Washington Post article at all in your comment #13, but to some unnamed comments by some unnamed people outside of the MSM, of a right-wing persuasion. Fair enough. There are those of both the right and the left that improperly try to link the insane acts of crazies to a political issue. E-Raj above identified one, there are many others, on both sides. It is a bad practice, no matter which side does it. On that we definitely agree.

    It’s even worse when a reporter does it, in the context of a straight news story, imo.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 16: OK. So if I understand you correctly, you were not referring to the linked Washington Post article at all in your comment #13, but to some unnamed comments by some unnamed people outside of the MSM, of a right-wing persuasion. Fair enough. There are those of both the right and the left that improperly try to link the insane acts of crazies to a political issue. E-Raj above identified one, there are many others, on both sides. It is a bad practice, no matter which side does it. On that we definitely agree.

    It’s even worse when a reporter does it, in the context of a straight news story, imo.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@19), are you being intentionally thick today? I’ve already said in several ways that I don’t think that the article in question — or at least that part that Veith quoted — is fair. And as to whom the “unnamed people” are, you really aren’t trying very hard. Even Veith himself engaged in this activity we’re decrying, noting that “this mentally-disturbed 36-year-old was a creature of the left rather than of the right.” And, as should be expected, so did Michelle Malkin (and Carl Vehse, by extension).

    As for you and E-Raj, I think you’ve missed the larger point: that mentally ill people can easily obtain guns and use them. All because of a fear of gun control.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@19), are you being intentionally thick today? I’ve already said in several ways that I don’t think that the article in question — or at least that part that Veith quoted — is fair. And as to whom the “unnamed people” are, you really aren’t trying very hard. Even Veith himself engaged in this activity we’re decrying, noting that “this mentally-disturbed 36-year-old was a creature of the left rather than of the right.” And, as should be expected, so did Michelle Malkin (and Carl Vehse, by extension).

    As for you and E-Raj, I think you’ve missed the larger point: that mentally ill people can easily obtain guns and use them. All because of a fear of gun control.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 20: Dr. Veith’s point was made only in response to the initial charge that the shooter was a man of the right. I don’t think he would have made the point otherwise. That was the context also, for Malkin’s comments. Certainly, when an initial charge is made concerning the politics of a nutjob gunman, in a pathetic attempt to paint those of a particular political persuasion as dangerous, you would agree that refutation is permissible. Correct?

    I’ll leave the gun control debate for another thread.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 20: Dr. Veith’s point was made only in response to the initial charge that the shooter was a man of the right. I don’t think he would have made the point otherwise. That was the context also, for Malkin’s comments. Certainly, when an initial charge is made concerning the politics of a nutjob gunman, in a pathetic attempt to paint those of a particular political persuasion as dangerous, you would agree that refutation is permissible. Correct?

    I’ll leave the gun control debate for another thread.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don, I agree with you (@21) that when people (in this case, that Post article) make wrong charges, that refutation is permissible. And you correctly refuted the practice the first time, when you said (@12), “To attempt to attach these nuts to either predominant political viewpoint is, at tODD says, pathetic, as well as exploitive.”

    But now you’re defending the practice, saying that, when someone on the right says that this mentally ill man was a right-winger, it’s okay to say, no, he was a left-winger. But that is engaging in the very activity that you and I initially agreed was pathetic! If it’s wrong one way, it’s wrong the other way. The solution isn’t to overcorrect and swing into the opposite error.

    I’m beginning to wonder if you really think it’s pathetic when right-wingers do it.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don, I agree with you (@21) that when people (in this case, that Post article) make wrong charges, that refutation is permissible. And you correctly refuted the practice the first time, when you said (@12), “To attempt to attach these nuts to either predominant political viewpoint is, at tODD says, pathetic, as well as exploitive.”

    But now you’re defending the practice, saying that, when someone on the right says that this mentally ill man was a right-winger, it’s okay to say, no, he was a left-winger. But that is engaging in the very activity that you and I initially agreed was pathetic! If it’s wrong one way, it’s wrong the other way. The solution isn’t to overcorrect and swing into the opposite error.

    I’m beginning to wonder if you really think it’s pathetic when right-wingers do it.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Sorry. Got confused. That should read (@22) “when someone in the media says that this mentally ill man was a right-winger, it’s okay to say, no, he was a left-winger.”

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Sorry. Got confused. That should read (@22) “when someone in the media says that this mentally ill man was a right-winger, it’s okay to say, no, he was a left-winger.”

  • DonS

    tODD @ 22/23: So it might have been more artful as refutation to say:
    ” your charge that he was a right-winger is itself nuts, and entirely unbecoming a supposedly objective journalist, given that he actually held left-wing views, or an amalgam of left and right wing views emblematic of his status as a crazy person incapable of logic.”

    And, I assume that you would agree that would be appropriate refutation. But, really, the issue is the people making the initial comparison with the intent of painting a particular political viewpoint as engendering crazies, not the people refuting that initial comparison. The fact that you are focused on the refutation rather than the initial accusation leads me to to wonder if you really think it’s pathetic when left-wingers do it.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 22/23: So it might have been more artful as refutation to say:
    ” your charge that he was a right-winger is itself nuts, and entirely unbecoming a supposedly objective journalist, given that he actually held left-wing views, or an amalgam of left and right wing views emblematic of his status as a crazy person incapable of logic.”

    And, I assume that you would agree that would be appropriate refutation. But, really, the issue is the people making the initial comparison with the intent of painting a particular political viewpoint as engendering crazies, not the people refuting that initial comparison. The fact that you are focused on the refutation rather than the initial accusation leads me to to wonder if you really think it’s pathetic when left-wingers do it.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@24), please. I’m only “focused on the refutation” now because you won’t step up. My initial comment was directed at all parties involved, and, as I have already noted, I have specifically called out the article that Veith cited as being in the wrong.

    You, however, remain incapable (it would seem) of specifically calling out those on “your side” when they also do wrong. Seems like you’re only interested in media-bashing. I mean, honestly, your defense boils down to “but they did it first, so it’s okay if we do it back!” Good grief.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@24), please. I’m only “focused on the refutation” now because you won’t step up. My initial comment was directed at all parties involved, and, as I have already noted, I have specifically called out the article that Veith cited as being in the wrong.

    You, however, remain incapable (it would seem) of specifically calling out those on “your side” when they also do wrong. Seems like you’re only interested in media-bashing. I mean, honestly, your defense boils down to “but they did it first, so it’s okay if we do it back!” Good grief.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 25: Step up to what? They didn’t do wrong by refuting a ridiculous allegation. If Dr. Veith or Malkin or Carl had initiated a comment stating that, hey look, this Pentagon shooter had left-wing views, and then correllated that to increased violence and whatnot, as the article and SPLC were implying, then they would have done wrong. But, that’s not what they did. They merely said that the article (and its premise) was as nuts as the shooter, because the shooter actually had left-wing views. They did NOT then take it a step further and assert or imply somehow that those left-wing views were responsible for his crimes. If they had, then they would have been equally in the wrong.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 25: Step up to what? They didn’t do wrong by refuting a ridiculous allegation. If Dr. Veith or Malkin or Carl had initiated a comment stating that, hey look, this Pentagon shooter had left-wing views, and then correllated that to increased violence and whatnot, as the article and SPLC were implying, then they would have done wrong. But, that’s not what they did. They merely said that the article (and its premise) was as nuts as the shooter, because the shooter actually had left-wing views. They did NOT then take it a step further and assert or imply somehow that those left-wing views were responsible for his crimes. If they had, then they would have been equally in the wrong.

  • E-Raj

    That’s just it, tODD. People who are already officially mentally ill can’t easily obtain guns. Not legally. These people obtained their guns prior to any hint of mental illness. And where do you draw the line? Depression? Anxiety? Bipolar disorder? There is no way the government will be able to find a way to ensure guns are not sold to people who will use them violently. What’s somewhat amusing is you seem to think there’s a way. The myriad of liberal gun control laws already on the books rarely focus on mental illness…just controlling the law-abiding citizen, for instance, what type of gun a person is allowed to buy (like the Clinton ban of the ’90s through 2004). Background checks are already in place to check for mental illnesses already diagnosed on a person’s record. What else can be done? Should each gun shop have a resident psychologist? I suppose everyone has the capacity to “lose it” at some point. Should we ban guns because anyone might go crazy some day? What about kitchen knives? Baseball bats?

    I know this isn’t the main point of this thread, but it definitely is a by-product of it…and worth mentioning.

  • E-Raj

    That’s just it, tODD. People who are already officially mentally ill can’t easily obtain guns. Not legally. These people obtained their guns prior to any hint of mental illness. And where do you draw the line? Depression? Anxiety? Bipolar disorder? There is no way the government will be able to find a way to ensure guns are not sold to people who will use them violently. What’s somewhat amusing is you seem to think there’s a way. The myriad of liberal gun control laws already on the books rarely focus on mental illness…just controlling the law-abiding citizen, for instance, what type of gun a person is allowed to buy (like the Clinton ban of the ’90s through 2004). Background checks are already in place to check for mental illnesses already diagnosed on a person’s record. What else can be done? Should each gun shop have a resident psychologist? I suppose everyone has the capacity to “lose it” at some point. Should we ban guns because anyone might go crazy some day? What about kitchen knives? Baseball bats?

    I know this isn’t the main point of this thread, but it definitely is a by-product of it…and worth mentioning.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X