Do You Support The "Gun Show Loophole?"

[martybegan]

Try one point at a time! The Constitution saying arms did not mean firearms, which are only one type of arms.

They were the type of arms a citizen brought to the party, pikes and maces being outdated at the time.

And yes firearms are a type of arms, and your right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed. So you just made your argument against yourself.

You just can't stop talking about me, can you?

I simply said firearms weren't the only type of arm in those days. Swords were also arms of that day and so were knives. Even a cannon was an type of arm of that day.

Rabbi dealt with the cannon thing.

And the only benefit of responding to your posts is the postive rep I get for sucessfully dealing with your drivel.

 

[Vast LWC]

How do you immediately trace a gun to anyone. Let us imagine that a gun is found at a crime scene, and it belongs to you. Does that make you guilty of the crime, or does it mean that your gun was there? What if the crime scene is the result of someone driving a car through your house with someone strapped to the bumper, should the police be able to confiscate your guns simply because they were found at the scene? Are the guns guilty even though they had nothing to do with what happened?

The gun would be traced to the person who sold the gun to the person who committed the crime.

This would have two effects:

1. The gun seller would be a good source of information on who committed the crime in question.

2. The gun seller could be held liable for selling the gun to a criminal, illegally, if the proper procedures were not followed.

The first effect is a direct good result, the second effect would be an indirect good result, in that it would discourage gun owners from selling weapons to criminals in the first place.

 

[OKTexas]

It doesn't sum anything up. You folks are so fucked in the head it is scary.

Background writings of the Framers regarding the Second Amendment.

If you read and understand what our founder's intent was regarding the second amendment, you would understand that our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.

Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress’ debate on arms and militia, you’ll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.

The James Madison resolution on the issue clearly stated that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed” since a “well-regulated militia” is the “best security of a free country.”

Virginia’s support of a right to bear arms was based on the same rationale: “A well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State”

Ultimately, as we know the agreed upon 2nd Amendment reads: “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.”

That reads like a conditional statement. If we as a fledgling new nation are committed to our own security, then it’s best we have a regulated militia. And to maintain this defensive militia, we must allow Americans to keep and bear arms.

The other defensive option would have been a standing army.

But at the time, our Founding Fathers believed a militia was the one best defense for the nation since a standing army was, to quote Jefferson, “an engine of oppression.”

Our Founding Fathers were scared senseless of standing armies. It was well-accepted among the Members of Congress during that first gun debate that “standing armies in a time of peace are dangerous to liberty.” Those were the exact words used in the state of New York’s amendment to the gun debate.

Later, in an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.”

Had the early framers of the Constitution embraced a standing army during times of peace, then there would be no need for a regulated militia, and thus no need for the 2nd Amendment.

more

Exactly, A FREE STATE, now show me anywhere the founders used the term "State" and the term "Government or Federal Government", synonymously. Hint, not once.

Our founding fathers chose forming state militias TO defend our government, not protect FROM government. They were concerned that a standing army was a threat to the nation.

The Federalist No. 29​

Concerning the Militia
Wednesday, January 9, 1788
[Alexander Hamilton]​

To the People of the State of New York:

THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "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."

Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.

Yep, hence the reference to the militias in the Constitution, the bill of rights were in response to the concerns of the States to preserve the peoples freedoms and insure the federal government could never make them irrelevant. Hence "the security of a free State" The federalist papers were written before the ratification of the Constitution and made no reference to the bill of rights.

 

[martybegan]

It doesn't sum anything up. You folks are so fucked in the head it is scary.

Background writings of the Framers regarding the Second Amendment.

If you read and understand what our founder's intent was regarding the second amendment, you would understand that our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.

Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress’ debate on arms and militia, you’ll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.

The James Madison resolution on the issue clearly stated that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed” since a “well-regulated militia” is the “best security of a free country.”

Virginia’s support of a right to bear arms was based on the same rationale: “A well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State”

Ultimately, as we know the agreed upon 2nd Amendment reads: “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.”

That reads like a conditional statement. If we as a fledgling new nation are committed to our own security, then it’s best we have a regulated militia. And to maintain this defensive militia, we must allow Americans to keep and bear arms.

The other defensive option would have been a standing army.

But at the time, our Founding Fathers believed a militia was the one best defense for the nation since a standing army was, to quote Jefferson, “an engine of oppression.”

Our Founding Fathers were scared senseless of standing armies. It was well-accepted among the Members of Congress during that first gun debate that “standing armies in a time of peace are dangerous to liberty.” Those were the exact words used in the state of New York’s amendment to the gun debate.

Later, in an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.”

Had the early framers of the Constitution embraced a standing army during times of peace, then there would be no need for a regulated militia, and thus no need for the 2nd Amendment.

more

Exactly, A FREE STATE, now show me anywhere the founders used the term "State" and the term "Government or Federal Government", synonymously. Hint, not once.

Our founding fathers chose forming state militias TO defend our government, not protect FROM government. They were concerned that a standing army was a threat to the nation.

The Federalist No. 29​

Concerning the Militia
Wednesday, January 9, 1788
[Alexander Hamilton]​

To the People of the State of New York:

THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "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."

Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.

The founders could have never considered such all encompassing government as we are currently dealing with. Or they did, and gave us the 2nd as a method of getting rid of it should it get too frisky.

 

[Dubya]

so when do we start doing background checks on people registering to vote and force them to have some form of government ID? Now i recall when conservatives made this type of recommendation you cried it was a violation of their constitutional rights and unfairly inconvenieced the poor. why do you have a sudden change of heart all of a sudden? why the double standard?

The Constitution doesn't give you the right to vote and only prohibits denying people's rights as citizens. How can you claim the person voting has to register, but a gun owner can't be required to register? The fact is the state requires a person to register to vote and the state can require a registration to own a firearm. The Constitution only prohibits disarming the populace and that is a right involvng the general public and not an individual's right in the sense of applying it to themselves. A person can be disarmed without it violating the Constitution. A person has the right to not have the populace disarmed.

That is the biggest pile of circular drivel you have posted so far. Voting requires registration simply because they have to know how many people are voting, and who votes where. Owning a gun you keep in your home requires none of that. States may require a CCW that shows you are capable of concealed carry, and that is mostly for your own protection so a police officer knows you are allowed to carry.

IF you didnt have voter rolls, you couldnt know who could vote, where the vote came from, and how many representatives a given area gets. Guns require no such information to own.

The Constitution didn't give you the right to vote. It prohibited denying the rights of a citizen, because of race and later gender. The right to vote comes from the states giving those voting rights to it's citizens. The right to vote had conditions which infringed the right of certain citizens until the Constitution changed that.

Voter registration rolls have nothing to do with how many representatives a given area gets and that is done by the census.

The Constitution only prohibits the disarming of the populace and the states and federal government do have a right to deny certain types of weapons, as long as it isn't the whole category, such as pistols. That decision is only based on case law. An assault weapons ban is constitutional and so are bans on magazine sizes.

 

[OODA_Loop]

The Constitution only prohibits the disarming of the populace and the states and federal government do have a right to deny certain types of weapons, as long as it isn't the whole category, such as pistols. That decision is only based on case law. An assault weapons ban is constitutional and so are bans on magazine sizes.

Lets say your assertion is correct, which it is not (common use) a semi-auto which accepts a detachable magazine is a category of weapon.

 

[martybegan]

The Constitution doesn't give you the right to vote and only prohibits denying people's rights as citizens. How can you claim the person voting has to register, but a gun owner can't be required to register? The fact is the state requires a person to register to vote and the state can require a registration to own a firearm. The Constitution only prohibits disarming the populace and that is a right involvng the general public and not an individual's right in the sense of applying it to themselves. A person can be disarmed without it violating the Constitution. A person has the right to not have the populace disarmed.

That is the biggest pile of circular drivel you have posted so far. Voting requires registration simply because they have to know how many people are voting, and who votes where. Owning a gun you keep in your home requires none of that. States may require a CCW that shows you are capable of concealed carry, and that is mostly for your own protection so a police officer knows you are allowed to carry.

IF you didnt have voter rolls, you couldnt know who could vote, where the vote came from, and how many representatives a given area gets. Guns require no such information to own.

The Constitution didn't give you the right to vote. It prohibited denying the rights of a citizen, because of race and later gender. The right to vote comes from the states giving those voting rights to it's citizens. The right to vote had conditions which infringed the right of certain citizens until the Constitution changed that.

Voter registration rolls have nothing to do with how many representatives a given area gets and that is done by the census.

The Constitution only prohibits the disarming of the populace and the states and federal government do have a right to deny certain types of weapons, as long as it isn't the whole category, such as pistols. That decision is only based on case law. An assault weapons ban is constitutional and so are bans on magazine sizes.

Nope, they are not. or at least they should not be except for courts that make law instead of interpret it.

Congratulations, you actually made your first point about the census.

Yes, but the state consitutions gave voting rights, and the consitution said that if you could vote for the states lower house, you could vote for the house. senators were by state legislature, and president was by electors, and you could vote for electors if you could vote for the lower house.


And if you want to INFRINGE on gun owner rights, amend the consitution. If it SOOOO popular, you should have no problem getting the required votes in the chambers, and the 3/4 states.

 

[Jarlaxle]

"You" want the NRA/Pro-gun side to compromise and agree to give up someting trleated to the right to arms.
By defintion, there can be no compromise unless the other side - the anti-gun/pro-gun control side - gives something in return.

Oh, I'm afraid you misunderstand the situation here.

Since the majority of the population currently supports stricter gun legislation, the political power in this situation currently belongs to the Gun Control Supporters.

Since they want both assault weapon bans and registration/background checks, while the pro-gun folks want nothing, just having registration/background checks is in fact a compromise.

You clearly do not understand the meaning of compromise.

He understands, but doesn't CARE./ His idea of compromise is, "Shut up and do what I tell you."

 

[Jarlaxle]

And without background checks, how are you going to prevent that?

WITH background checks, how are you going to prevent that?

You have been told, background checks are just a beginning.

Continually repeating a stupid statement doesn't make it an intelligent statement, kid. It just makes you look even dumber than you already look.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Nothing is 100%. Drunk drivers still manage to drive, but fewer of them.

Same with guns in the hands of felons.

Now are you going to keep answering a question with a question?

I doubt fewer felons will get guns if they want them if you strengthen background check laws. They already go underground for thier guns, where are they gonna go underground-ier?

They get them at gun shows - publicly. It would at least close that loophole. Those that go underground will, others just won't bother to get a gun because it's too much trouble.

No, that is a LIE!

 

[Oddball]

How do you immediately trace a gun to anyone. Let us imagine that a gun is found at a crime scene, and it belongs to you. Does that make you guilty of the crime, or does it mean that your gun was there? What if the crime scene is the result of someone driving a car through your house with someone strapped to the bumper, should the police be able to confiscate your guns simply because they were found at the scene? Are the guns guilty even though they had nothing to do with what happened?

The gun would be traced to the person who sold the gun to the person who committed the crime.

This would have two effects:

1. The gun seller would be a good source of information on who committed the crime in question.

2. The gun seller could be held liable for selling the gun to a criminal, illegally, if the proper procedures were not followed.

The first effect is a direct good result, the second effect would be an indirect good result, in that it would discourage gun owners from selling weapons to criminals in the first place.

The everyday citizen is not a federal agent, nor should they be put into the position of acting as one.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Getting someone to register their gun is not a strict gun control measure. You will find many states requiring it and eventually it will be done nationally.

I'll admit I haven't explored both sides of the gun registration issue yet. The arguments I've heard against a national registry of firearms is it could/would lead to the Federal Government keeping tabs on who owns what weaponry and possible abuse of that information. Also, it would be very incomplete given the vast numbers of firerarms that are passed on privately anyway.

I'm not sure about that issue.

It wouldn't be incomplete when a gun owner is required to register firearms they have already purchased.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that unconstitutional. You fail as usual.

 

[Oddball]

Chicago and Washington DC have very strict gun laws...and are essentially war zones. You fail.

Please.

For every city that has strict gun laws that has issues, I can point you to another city that has very loose gun laws that is a hell on earth.

Local gun laws make next to no difference in a nation where criminals can take a drive over the state line and grab all the guns they want.

So, start listing them.

Bring it.

 

[Dubya]

This is what happens when the gungrabbers get to control the language on the issue.

There isn't a single of those weapons on that list that is a fully automatic weapon. Everyone of those is an Ugly and Scary looking, Semi-Automatic.

Hell, I saw a shotgun on Saturday that nearly made me wet my pants. Scary wasn't the word for how this damn thing looked.

It terrified me.

But it was still a Semi-Automatic. In all reality it was no different than other semi-automatic shot gun, it was cosmetically ugly, mechanically normal.

It has nothing to do with how they 'look'. It has to do with the vast amount of human carnage they inflict in a very, very short time span.

Here is how a Police Chief explains the true purpose of a semiautomatic AR-15 rifle before Congress:

"We use that weapon in police because of its technical capability, it's ability to cool down and handle round after round after round ... It's rugged...it's meant for a combat or environment that one would be placed in facing adversaries, human beings, people. That weapon can be retrofitted with other devices to enhance your offensive capability. The weapon itself has features to adjust it -- optics sights, for example -- that can cost hundreds of dollars, and I've shot this weapon many times -- that would enhance our capability in various tactical maneuvers, whether [you're firing] from the shoulder or the hip or whether you choose to spray fire that weapon or individually shoot from the shoulder. The optic sights are amazing, the technology advances that weapon has.

That weapon is the weapon of our time. It’s the place that we find ourselves in today. And, certainly, I believe it’s meant for the battlefield and in a public safety environment only."

You know why it cools down so fast? Because it is a fucking weak ass gun that barely penetrates human skin, which also explains why the US military now uses a higher caliber weapon despite the advantages of not loading down the troops with the heavier ammo.

As for all the sights, you can do that with any rifle made.

You are full of shit, Windbag, and the fact that the military uses it shows how full of shit you are. It'll penetrate more than skin and is liable to go right through you if it misses bone. The M-16 was considered an inhumane weapon in Vietnam, because of the way the bullet would start to tumble and travel to places all over the body. That happens with a very high speed bullet.

 

[Dubya]

They were the type of arms a citizen brought to the party, pikes and maces being outdated at the time.

And yes firearms are a type of arms, and your right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed. So you just made your argument against yourself.

You just can't stop talking about me, can you?

I simply said firearms weren't the only type of arm in those days. Swords were also arms of that day and so were knives. Even a cannon was an type of arm of that day.

A cannon was not a tyoe of arm.
Another blooper by the Blooper in Chief of USMB.

Nuclear arms aren't arms, right?

Arms just means weapon, so try a dictionary!

 

[Jarlaxle]

There have been other shootings besides Newtown where, perhaps that might have made a small difference or - reloading could have allowed someone a chance to get at the shooter.



I don't have stats on that but, again they are something that could add a margin of safety without drastically impacting legitimate gun owners.



I wasn't going to go all "nutty" on hollow points, but thanks for the info

you can change a magazine in two seconds. I don't think anyone who is unarmed and under fire is going to be able to react that quickly.

Some can change a magazine in two seconds - that's an ideal for a pro. It gives someone an opening that could divert a shooters attention long enough to make a difference.

Why does anyone need to have a high capacity magazine - any more than say a rocket launcher?

Two seconds is very slow...I can do a mag swap in a pistol in just under ONE second, and I'm not all that quick.

 

[Dubya]

That is the biggest pile of circular drivel you have posted so far. Voting requires registration simply because they have to know how many people are voting, and who votes where. Owning a gun you keep in your home requires none of that. States may require a CCW that shows you are capable of concealed carry, and that is mostly for your own protection so a police officer knows you are allowed to carry.

IF you didnt have voter rolls, you couldnt know who could vote, where the vote came from, and how many representatives a given area gets. Guns require no such information to own.

The Constitution didn't give you the right to vote. It prohibited denying the rights of a citizen, because of race and later gender. The right to vote comes from the states giving those voting rights to it's citizens. The right to vote had conditions which infringed the right of certain citizens until the Constitution changed that.

Voter registration rolls have nothing to do with how many representatives a given area gets and that is done by the census.

The Constitution only prohibits the disarming of the populace and the states and federal government do have a right to deny certain types of weapons, as long as it isn't the whole category, such as pistols. That decision is only based on case law. An assault weapons ban is constitutional and so are bans on magazine sizes.

Nope, they are not. or at least they should not be except for courts that make law instead of interpret it.

Congratulations, you actually made your first point about the census.

Yes, but the state consitutions gave voting rights, and the consitution said that if you could vote for the states lower house, you could vote for the house. senators were by state legislature, and president was by electors, and you could vote for electors if you could vote for the lower house.


And if you want to INFRINGE on gun owner rights, amend the consitution. If it SOOOO popular, you should have no problem getting the required votes in the chambers, and the 3/4 states.

The only way you can infringe the 2nd Amendment is to disarm the populace. As far as the other things go, you aren't going to get a court decision in your favor, so get used to it. Places like New York will get laws requiring registration of firearms. It's just a matter of time.

 

[Dubya]

WITH background checks, how are you going to prevent that?

You have been told, background checks are just a beginning.

Continually repeating a stupid statement doesn't make it an intelligent statement, kid. It just makes you look even dumber than you already look.

I answered and didn't repeat, fool! Learn how to read!

 

[Oddball]

It has nothing to do with how they 'look'. It has to do with the vast amount of human carnage they inflict in a very, very short time span.

Here is how a Police Chief explains the true purpose of a semiautomatic AR-15 rifle before Congress:

"We use that weapon in police because of its technical capability, it's ability to cool down and handle round after round after round ... It's rugged...it's meant for a combat or environment that one would be placed in facing adversaries, human beings, people. That weapon can be retrofitted with other devices to enhance your offensive capability. The weapon itself has features to adjust it -- optics sights, for example -- that can cost hundreds of dollars, and I've shot this weapon many times -- that would enhance our capability in various tactical maneuvers, whether [you're firing] from the shoulder or the hip or whether you choose to spray fire that weapon or individually shoot from the shoulder. The optic sights are amazing, the technology advances that weapon has.

That weapon is the weapon of our time. It’s the place that we find ourselves in today. And, certainly, I believe it’s meant for the battlefield and in a public safety environment only."

You know why it cools down so fast? Because it is a fucking weak ass gun that barely penetrates human skin, which also explains why the US military now uses a higher caliber weapon despite the advantages of not loading down the troops with the heavier ammo.

As for all the sights, you can do that with any rifle made.

You are full of shit, Windbag, and the fact that the military uses it shows how full of shit you are. It'll penetrate more than skin and is liable to go right through you if it misses bone. The M-16 was considered an inhumane weapon in Vietnam, because of the way the bullet would start to tumble and travel to places all over the body. That happens with a very high speed bullet.

Once again, you show that you don't know your ass from a hot rock.

Military 556mm and civilian .223 are different rounds, ignoramus.

The 5.56×45mm NATO (official NATO nomenclature 5.56 NATO) is a rifle cartridge developed in the United States and originally chambered in the M16 rifle. Under STANAG 4172, it is a standard cartridge for NATO forces as well as many non-NATO countries.[2] It is derived from, but not identical to, the .223 Remington cartridge. When the bullet impacts at high velocity and yaws[3] in tissue, fragmentation creates a rapid transfer of energy which can result in dramatic wounding effects

5.56×45mm NATO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're dumber than dirt on the subject of firearms...You really should go post about something you know about...Like masturbation.

 

[Dubya]

I'll admit I haven't explored both sides of the gun registration issue yet. The arguments I've heard against a national registry of firearms is it could/would lead to the Federal Government keeping tabs on who owns what weaponry and possible abuse of that information. Also, it would be very incomplete given the vast numbers of firerarms that are passed on privately anyway.

I'm not sure about that issue.

It wouldn't be incomplete when a gun owner is required to register firearms they have already purchased.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that unconstitutional. You fail as usual.

You don't know how to read that too.