CDZ 2nd amendmant and arms

[there4eyeM]

Trigger locks have not been ruled upon.

 

[danielpalos]

If the 2nd means no limitations on armed citizens, why are knives controlled and limited?

The 2nd amendment grants the right to keep and bear arms, but nowhere does it say the government cannot regulate those arms.

You dumb ass, do you know what the words "shall not be infringed " means?

Yes, and, It Only applies literally to well regulated militias of the People.

Sorry pal in 2008 the supreme court disagrees, it is an individual right


District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right

Yes, it is an Individual right for Persons of the People who are a well regulated Militia.

History and tradition is no excuse to appeal to ignorance of our own laws.

 

[danielpalos]

Trigger locks have not been ruled upon.

Neither has why the Judicature felt it was appropriate to appeal to ignorance of Article 1, Section 8 where Arms for the militia is declared socialized.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

[Wyatt earp]

If the 2nd means no limitations on armed citizens, why are knives controlled and limited?

The 2nd amendment grants the right to keep and bear arms, but nowhere does it say the government cannot regulate those arms.

You dumb ass, do you know what the words "shall not be infringed " means?

Yes, and, It Only applies literally to well regulated militias of the People.

Sorry pal in 2008 the supreme court disagrees, it is an individual right


District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right

Yes, it is an Individual right for Persons of the People who are a well regulated Militia.

History and tradition is no excuse to appeal to ignorance of our own laws.

Nope Militia is not the US military.

North Carolina State Defense Militia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[danielpalos]

The 2nd amendment grants the right to keep and bear arms, but nowhere does it say the government cannot regulate those arms.

You dumb ass, do you know what the words "shall not be infringed " means?

Yes, and, It Only applies literally to well regulated militias of the People.

Sorry pal in 2008 the supreme court disagrees, it is an individual right


District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right

Yes, it is an Individual right for Persons of the People who are a well regulated Militia.

History and tradition is no excuse to appeal to ignorance of our own laws.

Nope Militia is not the US military.

North Carolina State Defense Militia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I never claimed it was.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You dumb ass, do you know what the words "shall not be infringed " means?

Yes, and, It Only applies literally to well regulated militias of the People.

Sorry pal in 2008 the supreme court disagrees, it is an individual right


District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right

Yes, it is an Individual right for Persons of the People who are a well regulated Militia.

History and tradition is no excuse to appeal to ignorance of our own laws.

Nope Militia is not the US military.

North Carolina State Defense Militia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I never claimed it was.

What?

So you really understand the difference between the Militia and the U.S.A. military?

 

[danielpalos]

You are the one begging the question.

 

[Idadunno]

If the 2nd means no limitations on armed citizens, why are knives controlled and limited?

The 2nd amendment grants the right to keep and bear arms, but nowhere does it say the government cannot regulate those arms.

Correction. NO WHERE does it say government CAN regulate those arms.

And NOWHERE does it say that it CANNOT.
People have the right to own a gun, the right to have an abortion, and the government has the right to regulate both. The government has the right to regulate car safety, food safety, anything that pertains to the safety of the general public. Oh! We have law enforcement and military. Amazing. Get over yourself, it is not attractive.

 

[Josf]

"Still citing case law."

The intended meaning of the words, in context, is offered to anyone who cares to know. The response from one forum member on one forum is flippant, as if the meaning of the words offered are meaningless?

RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER 1 U.S. 236 1788 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

"It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue."

Why would someone work at covering up the meaning of those words in that context? The date of the meaning of those words is before the Judiciary Act of 1789. The individual speaking those words is a Chief Justice on a Supreme Court in the State of Pennsylvania 1787. The law existed as such before the so called Constitution of 1789. Those who claim that a thing, a Constitution, gives (or takes away) rights are clearly offering false claims. Why? What is their motive for resorting to deception?


"Our supreme code law of the land is all I need."

Why do people combine words with different meanings such as this case were "code" is combined with "law" as if now there is a hybrid, or a consolidated, meaning where once the meaning of law was clear and concise.

"It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue."

"The case in Waco would not have happened if those Persons had been a well regulated militia of the People."

The lengths at which deception must go is a natural law. One lie demands two more to cover up the first one, then each new lie demand an exponentially larger pile of lies. If someone prefers to not have their church full of people burned alive as an example to anyone failing to pay a tax on a gun, or merely failing to obey the order to pay without question, then, if someone prefers not to be burned alive, someone is offered this idea that someone may want to suggest to the flock that the flock ought to become a well regulated militia so as not to be burned alive as an example of what happens to those who fail to pay when ordered to pay, and do so without question?

 

[RandallFlagg]

Indeed. The SCOTUS can declare laws "unconstitutional". Lately, however, they have been doing what (seems to be) what every other "judge" in this country is doing - legislating from the bench. Read Jefferson's statement above.

If, when the court is leaning to the liberal side - what is to stop them from re-hearing a 2nd amendment case and overturning themselves? These "checks and balances" you speak of have been thrown out the window, for the most part. The executive branch does what it wants, when it wants. The legislative branch sits on their hands and refuses to do much of anything and the judicial branch changes written law at will to satisfy those who appointed them.

It's called "tyranny".

I don't believe that they're being legislative. They're just simply saying things are unconstitutional. However they're changing their mind on things, which is where people get irate. Take gay marriage, it should have changed in 1868, it didn't. For 150 years they allowed things to remain as they were, using their "judgement" to keep things as they wanted, ie, not interpreting the constitution as it should have been interpreted.

So it's not tyranny.

Here's the thing...Tyranny comes in many forms. "changing your mind" is not a judicial term. "Changing your mind" means that you are susceptible to outside forces. When president "a" appoints a person to the SCOTUS - he is expecting that that person will carry his will into the judicial process. When that person retires and president "b" appoints his person - well, you get the point.

In other words - the SCOTUS is merely carrying the legislative process forward for THEIR boss - the president of the US. Make no mistake about it - those clowns in black robes do the bidding of their boss - and no one else. It's just that one must first understand that their boss is one (or both) of the following - the president or the corporate interests who place large checks into their hands at the parties in Georgetown.

Jefferson warned us - and we refused to listen.

 

[Josf]

Jefferson, Mason, Henry, Lee, Yates, Martin, and many others warned us, some listened as demonstrated by the fact that the Bill of Rights offers solutions to despotic designs carried to fruition.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Jefferson, Mason, Henry, Lee, Yates, Martin, and many others warned us, some listened as demonstrated by the fact that the Bill of Rights offers solutions to despotic designs carried to fruition.

The Bill Of Rights, indeed, was intended to curb abuses (or possible) abuses by government. I acknowledge that. However, looking at, say, the Second Amendment, it doesn't appear as a stretch to understand that a new SCOTUS could "interpret" the amendment completely differently from the previous SCOTUS. THAT is the danger here (at least as I see it).

 

[NoNukes]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

the right of the PEOPLE, not the right of the MILITIA, shall not be infringed

The people are the militia.

 

[Auld Phart]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

the right of the PEOPLE, not the right of the MILITIA, shall not be infringed

The people are the militia.

No.

Only males between the ages of 16-45 could be in the militia.

You exclude all females, and males under 16, over 45 , from the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

If the 2nd means no limitations on armed citizens, why are knives controlled and limited?

The 2nd's language was all about limitations. "...as part of a well-regulated militia..."

 

[Auld Phart]

If the 2nd means no limitations on armed citizens, why are knives controlled and limited?

The 2nd's language was all about limitations. "...as part of a well-regulated militia..."

'as part'?

Don't see that in the 2nd.

"Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

[Josf]

"The Bill Of Rights, indeed, was intended to curb abuses (or possible) abuses by government. I acknowledge that. However, looking at, say, the Second Amendment, it doesn't appear as a stretch to understand that a new SCOTUS could "interpret" the amendment completely differently from the previous SCOTUS. THAT is the danger here (at least as I see it)."

The idea behind rule of law has been, is, and always will be such that no one is above it, all are subject to it, or there is no law, no due process, and criminals reign with their criminal orders, to be obeyed without question.

The first amendment offers the idea that anyone is afforded redress of grievances. That means that anyone in public office censoring a demand for redress of grievances is guilty of a capital crime. Take any individual in any office of the government and whenever said individual perpetrates a crime, such as censoring a demand for redress of grievance, then said individual is subject to trial by jury according to our common laws which include the employment of a Grand Jury.

Take the first example of the first abuse by the one presiding over congress at the federal level, call him The President of the United States of America in Congress Assembled if the idea is to establish the one presiding over the federal congress which is the one part of the government that works for the state governments.

If, on the other hand, your idea is a Nation State idea (not a Bill of Rights and federation idea), then you might call the President by another name, such as the head of the corporation known as Untied States. Now there are two opposing viewpoints concerning the names, or labels, used to identify the indivudal who abuses the power commanded by the individual. So take a case such as the first president assembling an army of conscripts so as to then invade the independent State of Pennsylvania, so as to enforce a direct tax on whiskey, as the people in Pennsylvania are doing their duty according to the Articles of Confederation, according to their State Constitution, and according to the Declaration of Independence.

Now there are two controversial sides to this one incident going by the dubious name of The Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation. An individual can, in a federation, under the rule of law, accuse said President of perpetrating a crime upon a number of victims in Pennsylvania as those people in Pennsylvania were abiding by their known laws, again, the Declaration of Independence, their State Constitution, The Articles of Confederation, and the common laws of free people, and there is then a demand for redress of grievances.

Now add the incident known boldly as The Alien and Sedition Acts, perpetrated by the second so called President of the United States (no longer of America and no longer in Congress Assembled since the criminal federalist party took over), and now there is the obvious censoring of anyone daring to speak out against the criminals who took over the federation.

So there are two cases that could have followed through with the known laws. George Washington guilty of doing exactly what King George was doing to cause people, duty bound, to resist, alter, and abolish criminal governments run by criminals, and John Adams guilty of doing exactly what King George was doing to cause people, duty bound, to resist, alter, and abolish criminal governments run by criminals. And the means, the palladium of Liberty, is trial by jury, or due process, IF, those in power do not follow the statutes that they claim to be their justified authority.

If they do not follow impeachment proceedings in an answer to a redress of grievance, and then assemble a Grand Jury after impeachment to present the impeached individual with an opportunity to defend themselves in a criminal trial by jury according to the common law, then all that said government officials are doing, in absente, is piling crime upon crime according to, again, the statutes that they claim are their justifications for their authority.

If none of the people care to push the issue, according to their duty as moral people, as explained well enough in Statute #1, which is the Declaration of Independence, then criminals in office get away with the same crimes that King George got away with, until the people had enough, and the people declared their independence from said criminals. Again, that was what the people were doing in Pennsylvania, doing their duty, according to Statute #1, and that is what people were also doing earlier in what became known as Shays's Rebellion in Massachusetts.

No one followed the actual statutes on the books. No one held the criminals to account using the actual statues on the books. Too many people were misdirected and led to believe that the Admiralty, or Equity, or Debtors/Exchequer "Courts" were still valid, and that no other process other than Rebellion was possible. Had enough people realized the viability of precisely what was written in so many Constitutions, and ultimately in the Bill of Rights, then those criminals in those offices of government would have faced the same process that they claim to be their power of authority.

If a redress of grievance is ignored, censored, by an official in government then said government official is perpetrating the crime described in the 1st Amendment. Now there are two crimes alleged against government officials.

1. The crime alleged (such as George Washington's war of aggression in Pennsylvania, and John Adams' Alien and Sedition "Acts") which inspired censorship of redress of grievances.

2. The censorship of redress of grievance.

When the corporate personal do not police themselves, as the corporation charter explains with the impeachment process, then that failure by those in office does not end rule of law. Rule of law then reverts back to the people, in the county in which the accusation is made, and a Sheriff (of the people, not a Sheriff on the take, or not a Sheriff of the corporation) assembles a Grand Jury, and the randomly picked Grand Jurors represent the whole country, as in "trial by the country," and if the jurists unanimously agree, based upon their investigation of the merits of the accusation, to go ahead with a trial by jury, then said Grand Jury is tasked with writing a presentment. The Sheriff presents the accused with a presentment, offering trial by jury for the accused to defend themselves.

The accused is presumed to be innocent. The accuser, represented by a prosecutor of the people, not a prosecutor on the take, not a prosecutor working for a private corporation, and said prosecutor of the people must prove guilt to 12 randomly selected jurists who are peers of the accused, jurists vetted through a process known as voir dire, and said prosecutor, and said jurists, constitute the law of the land that dates back before Magna Charter.

Not until the criminals took over in 1789 were the government officials in America claiming any power to lift themselves above the common law; and that is clearly written into the Articles of Confederation here:
"Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress, and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests or imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendence on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace."

If those in office claim to be working within the common laws of free people then they are subject to the same laws concerning anyone accusing anyone else of any wrongdoing anywhere, anytime. If instead said officer holder is claiming to be operating under a corporate charter, then said officer must be bonded according to their own bonding codes.

Bonding Code

__________________________________________________________
9.2 - Escalation

Further:
A law enforcement officer will lose his bond if he oppresses a citizen to the point of civil rebellion when that citizen attempts to obtain redress of grievances (U.S. constitutional 1st so-called amendment).

When a state, by and through its officials and agents, deprives a citizen of all of his remedies by the due process of law and deprives the citizen of the equal protection of the law, the state commits an act of mixed war against the citizen, and, by its behavior, the state declares war on the citizen. The citizen has the right to recognize this act by the publication of a solemn recognition of mixed war. This writing has the same force as the Declaration of Independence. It invokes the citizen's U.S. constitutional 9th and 10th so-called amend guarantees of the right to create an effective remedy where otherwise none exists.
____________________________________________________________

Richard Henry Lee explained very well how the criminals would employ a legal fiction (corporation) to overthrow (by deceit) due process according to common laws. That deception can be discovered, exposed, and defended against in both the Codes used by the corporate officers, and if they censor, then that deception can be defended against with common law due process as explained in the Bill of Rights, and if that does not work then the Declaration of Independence spells out the duty of free people when lawful means offered to law breakers fails to end conflicts peacefully.

If these are things you, or anyone else, refuse to know, then that is self censorship and you really can't blame anyone else for your failures in a land were rule of law, government, is by the people, meaning you, of the people, meaning you, and for the people, meaning you again.

 

[danielpalos]

Dudes and Esquires,

Please limit your strings of words to language actually found in our supreme law of the land as I have been doing the whole time; simply because, any Thing else can and will be considered an Appeal to Ignorance of our supreme law of the land.

Thank you.

 

[Josf]

"...our supreme law of the land."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

No means no. If said members of so called congress fail to abide by this statute, said individuals are perpetrating crimes not limited to fraud, malfeasance, treason, felony, and breach of the peace. Anyone in office censoring a redress of grievance, which is an accusation of wrongdoing done by named individuals perpetrated alleged crimes while in office, is adding further crimes to the list.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Anyone infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms is guilty of a capital crime; and therefore subject to the law of the land.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Anyone accusing any public official of the capital crime of infringing upon their rights as people to keep and bear arms is afforded due process just like anyone else, and a Grand Jury, by law, is assembled from the people, by lot, to represent the entire country of people, as in "trial by the country," so as to hear the accusation and if those jurists (the whole country represented in those jurist) deem, judge, and validate the accusation, then said Grand Jury is duty bound to write a presentment by which the accused is offered their trial by jury. Otherwise no person shall be held. That means, in English, anyone currently held for a capital crime without benefit of due process, without a Grand Jury of the people, by the people, and for the people judging the merits of the accusation, are victims of a capital crime perpetrated by whoever is conspiring to hold someone unlawfully.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

Speedy trial does not mean a trial that takes 60 years to follow through with "due process," as in the Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy trial. Those who were proven to be culpable in that conspiracy murder, according to the common law trial by jury due process (albeit late), got away with conspiracy murder.

"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

Anyone accusing anyone of failing to pay a tax on a gun exceeding 20 dollars is someone, in the first place guilty of a felony according to the law of the land written in the form of the Second Amendment, and in the second place anyone processing that accusation of failing to pay a tax on a gun exceeding 20 dollars to the point of Holding someone accused of failing to pay a tax on a gun exceeding 20 dollars is guilty of a felony, a capital crime, for failing to abide by the common laws of free people, if holding the alleged accused individual without a Grand Jury Presentment. Censoring the accused during said "holding" of said accused (presumed to be innocent until prove guilty) for demanding redress of grievances, is another felony according to the First Amendment. The accused, if held without presentment of the alleged crime of failing to pay a tax on a gun, bypassing rule of law during said "holding", can initiate a suit against the alleged perpetrator, according to the Seventh Amendment. Holding someone for allegedly failing to pay a tax on a gun less than 20 dollars is still a felony for holding someone against their will for a trivial matter. Holding unlawfully is called kidnapping.

 

[pauls]

"...our supreme law of the land."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

No means no. If said members of so called congress fail to abide by this statute, said individuals are perpetrating crimes not limited to fraud, malfeasance, treason, felony, and breach of the peace. Anyone in office censoring a redress of grievance, which is an accusation of wrongdoing done by named individuals perpetrated alleged crimes while in office, is adding further crimes to the list.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Anyone infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms is guilty of a capital crime; and therefore subject to the law of the land.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Anyone accusing any public official of the capital crime of infringing upon their rights as people to keep and bear arms is afforded due process just like anyone else, and a Grand Jury, by law, is assembled from the people, by lot, to represent the entire country of people, as in "trial by the country," so as to hear the accusation and if those jurists (the whole country represented in those jurist) deem, judge, and validate the accusation, then said Grand Jury is duty bound to write a presentment by which the accused is offered their trial by jury. Otherwise no person shall be held. That means, in English, anyone currently held for a capital crime without benefit of due process, without a Grand Jury of the people, by the people, and for the people judging the merits of the accusation, are victims of a capital crime perpetrated by whoever is conspiring to hold someone unlawfully.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

Speedy trial does not mean a trial that takes 60 years to follow through with "due process," as in the Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy trial. Those who were proven to be culpable in that conspiracy murder, according to the common law trial by jury due process (albeit late), got away with conspiracy murder.

"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

Anyone accusing anyone of failing to pay a tax on a gun exceeding 20 dollars is someone, in the first place guilty of a felony according to the law of the land written in the form of the Second Amendment, and in the second place anyone processing that accusation of failing to pay a tax on a gun exceeding 20 dollars to the point of Holding someone accused of failing to pay a tax on a gun exceeding 20 dollars is guilty of a felony, a capital crime, for failing to abide by the common laws of free people, if holding the alleged accused individual without a Grand Jury Presentment. Censoring the accused during said "holding" of said accused (presumed to be innocent until prove guilty) for demanding redress of grievances, is another felony according to the First Amendment. The accused, if held without presentment of the alleged crime of failing to pay a tax on a gun, bypassing rule of law during said "holding", can initiate a suit against the alleged perpetrator, according to the Seventh Amendment. Holding someone for allegedly failing to pay a tax on a gun less than 20 dollars is still a felony for holding someone against their will for a trivial matter. Holding unlawfully is called kidnapping.

Josf,
This is the first post of yours that I could actually make sense of. I find myself in nearly total agreement with you, which surprises me to no end.
Thank you,
Paul