Gun Control question for liberals?

[Wry Catcher]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Dear LeftofLeft
When I asked this earlier, G.T. argued that very few if ZERO liberals
want to take guns away, and just want them restricted to law abiding responsible people
where criminals and mentally ill cannot get access.

Can we start from there?

There are at least 3 different levels we don't agree on
1. proper screening and training/procedures for
police and military
2. regulations on citizens
3. how to screen or distinguish the CRIMINALS
from the law abiding citizens so they don't lose rights
as if they have committed crimes or pose dangers to the public

We already have laws on the books that restrict felons from owning or using firearms. We already have a federal law that requires dealers to do background checks on all sales.

When we explain to liberals that criminals don't get their guns from gun stores and dealers, they tell us that they get their guns from gun shows which there is no truth. Then they tell us the reason criminals get guns is because of the amount of guns we have. Therefore, the only possible way to stop criminals getting guns is to get rid of guns for everybody.

Oh bullshit. I don't believe anything you posted here.

 

[rightwinger]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Actually, confiscating over 300 million guns is not practical

So the emphasis has to be on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, crazies and those with depression

This means strict reporting rules, registration, licensing and background checks

Also means banning high capacity magazines and military grade weapons

Police can have as many guns as they wish

 

[Rigby5]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Do you mean liberals, or Social Marxist authoritarians?

No liberals have posted here
since the OP, but a shit ton of leftist shills have.

I'll make mark if ary a liberal wanders into here

Thank you for the clarification. It has been enlightening to see so many liberals on this board in favor of personal firearms. It is those that favor a strong central government and more socialist policies pushing for limited or non gun ownership.

Wrong again.

No ‘liberal’ advocates for a ‘strong’ central government or ‘socialism,’ whatever either are supposed to be.

And no ‘liberal’ advocates for limiting or prohibiting the private ownership of guns.

Indeed, ‘liberals’ support and defend Second Amendment jurisprudence; ‘liberals’ own guns and participate in the shooting sports.

The firearm regulatory measures ‘liberals’ propose are perfectly Constitutional and consistent with Second Amendment case law, where none of the proposed measures have been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

Now you have the facts with regard to ‘liberals’ and ‘gun control.’

dude go blow that smoke under someone else ass.

Sorry, but I have to agree with C_CLAYTON_JONES on this one.
Liberals never traditionally supported gun control.
Gun control came from wealthy whites who wanted to ensure Blacks, immigrants, and labor organizers stayed disarmed and easily intimidated.
The first people who CALLED themselves liberals and still supported gun control, were the Clintons.
But they clearly are not liberals or else they would not have supported things like the 1994 federal crime bill with the War on Drugs, 3 strikes, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, etc.
Real Liberals could never have supported things like that, or gun control.

 

[BULLDOG]

So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?

Not for hunting.

Not for target shooting.

Why?

BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.

Why do you need unfettered & unlicensed internet access? Why do you have the need to go to any church you want or not at all without some sort of license from the govt? See how this works...

Don't be stupid son. None of those things are potentially deadly like a firearm is. Although the church thing can lead to the misuse of them sometimes.

To license an inalienable right is to make that right into a privilege and charge a fee for the free exercise thereof.

We are not agreeing to a license.

Mandatory training for all? Okay. I agree with that. We already have mandatory background checks. Continuing to argue for something we already have demonstrates how you have been misinformed.

.

We have some background checks, but not for all gun sales. Imagine if you only had to gave a safety inspection if you bought a car from a car lot. Individual sales didn't require them.

I have never heard of any place ever mandating safety inspections on any car, ever.
All there has ever been in any of the dozen states I have lived in, is emissions test, and even that is only in large cities. Mandated car inspections likely are illegal.

40 of the 50 states require mandated inspections. If you claim to have never heard of mandated inspections, you are either lying or retarded.

 

[rightwinger]

If your gonna try to push that fantasy about overthrowing the government please spare me. It's bullshit and you all know it even though you won't admit it.

And my history is just that: mine. You wouldn't believe me if I told you anyway.

So you don't know the purpose of the second amendment. And you have no qualitative experience in the use of deadly force?
No history is not your's to bastardize it

You still using that fake AVI?

That's me stop whining
How did that background check work in the mass shooting at the church in texas?

No one law will stop all related crimes. Only a child would think they could. There are laws against murder, rape, and theft, should those laws be eliminated because they don't stop every murder, rape, or theft?

And The federal government has no right to know how many and what types of firearms law-abiding citizens own.

Of course they do

How else can you maintain well regulated militias?

 

[BULLDOG]

So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?

Not for hunting.

Not for target shooting.

Why?

BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.

I see you have no idea what the purpose of the second amendment is for.
It's not about hunting nor is it about target shooting
What is your qualitative experience on the use of deadly force? What gives you the ability to have an opinion on what an individual needs to prevail in a fight for their life?

If your gonna try to push that fantasy about overthrowing the government please spare me. It's bullshit and you all know it even though you won't admit it.

And my history is just that: mine. You wouldn't believe me if I told you anyway.

So you don't know the purpose of the second amendment. And you have no qualitative experience in the use of deadly force?
No history is not your's to bastardize it

You still using that fake AVI?

That's me stop whining
How did that background check work in the mass shooting at the church in texas?

See #196

 

[LeftofLeft]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Actually, confiscating over 300 million guns is not practical

So the emphasis has to be on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, crazies and those with depression

This means strict reporting rules, registration, licensing and background checks

Also means banning high capacity magazines and military grade weapons

Police can have as many guns as they wish

Thank you.

 

[Rigby5]

To license an inalienable right is to make that right into a privilege and charge a fee for the free exercise thereof.

We are not agreeing to a license.

Mandatory training for all? Okay. I agree with that. We already have mandatory background checks. Continuing to argue for something we already have demonstrates how you have been misinformed.

.

We have some background checks, but not for all gun sales. Imagine if you only had to gave a safety inspection if you bought a car from a car lot. Individual sales didn't require them.

Very few firearms used in crimes are purchased from gun stores or gun shows. Most are stolen or purchased through straw buyers. So you could expand background checks all you like, but it won't put a dent in the criminal problems we have.

If very few guns used in crimes are bought from those sources, it shows the effectiveness of background checks. Why wouldn't you want to add guns bought from individual sellers to that list of effective ways to keep guns out of criminal's hands?

Lol
Abuse, you can’t trust the federal government to do the right thing. It’s impossible

Quit your whining. Universal background checks wouldn't limit anybody's ability to legally own guns any more than the perfectly constitutional background checks we do now.

Yes they would, because background checks cost money if nothing else.
Background checks also invade privacy, allow government to database, invade privacy, make mistakes, can delay up to a week, require ID and finger prints, can prevent immediate defense needs, and can't be done by private people. It illegally allows government to arbitrarily divide society into two tiers, where one has less rights than another. And that is inherently illegal. Anyone who should not be allowed a firearm, should not be allowed to live unsupervised and protected at any times.

 

[Defiant1]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Actually, confiscating over 300 million guns is not practical

So the emphasis has to be on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, crazies and those with depression

This means strict reporting rules, registration, licensing and background checks

Also means banning high capacity magazines and military grade weapons

Police can have as many guns as they wish

Strict reporting rules?
Are you advocating squealing on your neighbors?

"911, my neighbor, with a Trump sign in his yard, looked a little sad today you need to come get his guns."

 

[BULLDOG]

We have some background checks, but not for all gun sales. Imagine if you only had to gave a safety inspection if you bought a car from a car lot. Individual sales didn't require them.

Very few firearms used in crimes are purchased from gun stores or gun shows. Most are stolen or purchased through straw buyers. So you could expand background checks all you like, but it won't put a dent in the criminal problems we have.

If very few guns used in crimes are bought from those sources, it shows the effectiveness of background checks. Why wouldn't you want to add guns bought from individual sellers to that list of effective ways to keep guns out of criminal's hands?

Lol
Abuse, you can’t trust the federal government to do the right thing. It’s impossible

Quit your whining. Universal background checks wouldn't limit anybody's ability to legally own guns any more than the perfectly constitutional background checks we do now.

Not true. First of all, background checks are not free, and cost $20. Second is that they invade privacy. Third is that historically they have always lead to illegal confiscation by a corrupt government. Forth is that there is no legal ability for government to deny anyone the right of self defense, even convicted felons who have served their time.
If there are people so dangerous they can't be trusted with weapons, then they can't be trusted with cars, flammables, fertilizer, poisons, or just about anything, and THEY need to be supervised constantly. You can't instead try to make the whole world nerf safe. That is impossible.
But the MAIN point is that background checks are always going to be irrelevant to criminals who already intend to violate far more serious laws.
All they do is harass and intimidate honest people.
Did the War on Drugs reduce drug availability?
No, it actually increased illegal drug availability by making the illegal market so profitable and by angering people with invasive nanny laws.
All laws like that do is increase murder by increasing the underground economy.
Make guns even more restricted and you increase murders through the increased underground economy.
We already know this from the mistake of Prohibition of Alcohol.
It always backfires, and can not possibly work.

Whether we should allow convicted felons to be armed is a different subject. The law now states that they aren't allowed to have guns, and universal background checks would help make that happen.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I see you have no idea what the purpose of the second amendment is for.
It's not about hunting nor is it about target shooting
What is your qualitative experience on the use of deadly force? What gives you the ability to have an opinion on what an individual needs to prevail in a fight for their life?

If your gonna try to push that fantasy about overthrowing the government please spare me. It's bullshit and you all know it even though you won't admit it.

And my history is just that: mine. You wouldn't believe me if I told you anyway.

So you don't know the purpose of the second amendment. And you have no qualitative experience in the use of deadly force?
No history is not your's to bastardize it

You still using that fake AVI?

That's me stop whining
How did that background check work in the mass shooting at the church in texas?

See #196

In other words those controlling the information for the ATF 4473 failed to do their job and you want more gun control laws?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Do you mean liberals, or Social Marxist authoritarians?

No liberals have posted here
since the OP, but a shit ton of leftist shills have.

I'll make mark if ary a liberal wanders into here

Thank you for the clarification. It has been enlightening to see so many liberals on this board in favor of personal firearms. It is those that favor a strong central government and more socialist policies pushing for limited or non gun ownership.

Wrong again.

No ‘liberal’ advocates for a ‘strong’ central government or ‘socialism,’ whatever either are supposed to be.

And no ‘liberal’ advocates for limiting or prohibiting the private ownership of guns.

Indeed, ‘liberals’ support and defend Second Amendment jurisprudence; ‘liberals’ own guns and participate in the shooting sports.

The firearm regulatory measures ‘liberals’ propose are perfectly Constitutional and consistent with Second Amendment case law, where none of the proposed measures have been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

Now you have the facts with regard to ‘liberals’ and ‘gun control.’

dude go blow that smoke under someone else ass.

Sorry, but I have to agree with C_CLAYTON_JONES on this one.
Liberals never traditionally supported gun control.
Gun control came from wealthy whites who wanted to ensure Blacks, immigrants, and labor organizers stayed disarmed and easily intimidated.
The first people who CALLED themselves liberals and still supported gun control, were the Clintons.
But they clearly are not liberals or else they would not have supported things like the 1994 federal crime bill with the War on Drugs, 3 strikes, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, etc.
Real Liberals could never have supported things like that, or gun control.

I would say it's the democrats who have a long long history in gun control it's the liberals who have now taken up the cause for gun control. dems have never changed

 

[Wry Catcher]

If your gonna try to push that fantasy about overthrowing the government please spare me. It's bullshit and you all know it even though you won't admit it.

And my history is just that: mine. You wouldn't believe me if I told you anyway.

So you don't know the purpose of the second amendment. And you have no qualitative experience in the use of deadly force?
No history is not your's to bastardize it

You still using that fake AVI?

That's me stop whining
How did that background check work in the mass shooting at the church in texas?

No one law will stop all related crimes. Only a child would think they could. There are laws against murder, rape, and theft, should those laws be eliminated because they don't stop every murder, rape, or theft?

And The federal government has no right to know how many and what types of firearms law-abiding citizens own.

It seems to me local government has a need to know if a homeowner has guns and ammo stored in a home. Police, firefighters, EMT's all respond and not often, but enough times, are med with fire by some kook.

 

[Rigby5]

I see you have no idea what the purpose of the second amendment is for.
It's not about hunting nor is it about target shooting
What is your qualitative experience on the use of deadly force? What gives you the ability to have an opinion on what an individual needs to prevail in a fight for their life?

If your gonna try to push that fantasy about overthrowing the government please spare me. It's bullshit and you all know it even though you won't admit it.

And my history is just that: mine. You wouldn't believe me if I told you anyway.

So you don't know the purpose of the second amendment. And you have no qualitative experience in the use of deadly force?
No history is not your's to bastardize it

You still using that fake AVI?

That's me stop whining
How did that background check work in the mass shooting at the church in texas?

No one law will stop all related crimes. Only a child would think they could. There are laws against murder, rape, and theft, should those laws be eliminated because they don't stop every murder, rape, or theft?

Laws against murder and rape do decrease murder and rape because of the large punishment.
But gun laws have LESS punishment than what the criminal intends to violate with the weapon, so can not possibly work at all.
In which case the ONLY possible intent of gun laws is to intimidate honest people.
And yes, making guns more difficult to get legally does greatly increase crime because it makes the illegal market more lucrative and enticing, just as the War on Drug and Prohibition greatly increased crime.
If you look at the graph of murders over the years, it is clear that Prohibition and the War on Drugs more than doubled the murder rates.
More gun laws only make the illegal gun market more lucrative and enticing, while greatly decreasing the credibility or respect for government.
A government that would implement gun control will be actively worked against by any responsible person who believes in a democratic republic. That is because with a democratic republic, gun control by government is essentially treason..

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Fox news told him so.

That must be it. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting (and passing into law) maximum magazine capacity. It couldn't have anything to do with some liberal cities passing laws against AR's. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting liability insurance for gun owners. It couldn't' have anything to do with liberals wanting gun manufacturers being held liable for murders committed by people using guns.

It has to do with Fox. And then you wonder why we refer to Democrats as the Uninformed Voters.

So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?

Not for hunting.

Not for target shooting.

Why?

BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.

I see you have no idea what the purpose of the second amendment is for.
It's not about hunting nor is it about target shooting
What is your qualitative experience on the use of deadly force? What gives you the ability to have an opinion on what an individual needs to prevail in a fight for their life?

If your gonna try to push that fantasy about overthrowing the government please spare me. It's bullshit and you all know it even though you won't admit it.

And my history is just that: mine. You wouldn't believe me if I told you anyway.

It's not fantasy...

Williams: Second Amendment Exists to Protect Us From Government

It is a fantasy, as ridiculous as it is wrong.

Nowhere in the text or case law of the Second Amendment do we find any reference to the wrongheaded notion that the Amendment ‘authorizes’ private citizens to ‘take up arms’ against a Federal government lawfully put into place by the people reflecting the will of the people.

In fact, the insurrectionist theory of the Second Amendment is completely devoid of merit and unsupported by the courts:

“…[the] linguistic gymnastics and historical reasoning in Heller may be suspect, but at least they are in service of a rational goal: the notion that people have a right to defend themselves against criminals. Nobody on the Court in Heller endorsed the insurrectionist theory as a guide to the contemporary meaning or implementation of the Second Amendment.”

Dorf on Law: The Resurrection of Second Amendment Insurrectionism is "Ted Cruz Crazy"

The Framers would not have amended the Constitution they just created with the means by which to destroy the Republic they had just created.

The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, not to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement,’ or to ‘deter crime,’ or to ‘overthrow’ a government incorrectly and subjectively perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’

 

[progressive hunter]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Do you mean liberals, or Social Marxist authoritarians?

No liberals have posted here
since the OP, but a shit ton of leftist shills have.

I'll make mark if ary a liberal wanders into here

Thank you for the clarification. It has been enlightening to see so many liberals on this board in favor of personal firearms. It is those that favor a strong central government and more socialist policies pushing for limited or non gun ownership.

Wrong again.

No ‘liberal’ advocates for a ‘strong’ central government or ‘socialism,’ whatever either are supposed to be.

And no ‘liberal’ advocates for limiting or prohibiting the private ownership of guns.

Indeed, ‘liberals’ support and defend Second Amendment jurisprudence; ‘liberals’ own guns and participate in the shooting sports.

The firearm regulatory measures ‘liberals’ propose are perfectly Constitutional and consistent with Second Amendment case law, where none of the proposed measures have been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

Now you have the facts with regard to ‘liberals’ and ‘gun control.’

and there you have it folks,,,

case law clayton has spoken and all has been revealed,,,

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Actually, confiscating over 300 million guns is not practical

So the emphasis has to be on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, crazies and those with depression

This means strict reporting rules, registration, licensing and background checks

Also means banning high capacity magazines and military grade weapons

Police can have as many guns as they wish

How does any of that prevent crime? all it does is make more crime
and by Constitutional authority my firearms are protected

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Very few firearms used in crimes are purchased from gun stores or gun shows. Most are stolen or purchased through straw buyers. So you could expand background checks all you like, but it won't put a dent in the criminal problems we have.

If very few guns used in crimes are bought from those sources, it shows the effectiveness of background checks. Why wouldn't you want to add guns bought from individual sellers to that list of effective ways to keep guns out of criminal's hands?

Lol
Abuse, you can’t trust the federal government to do the right thing. It’s impossible

Quit your whining. Universal background checks wouldn't limit anybody's ability to legally own guns any more than the perfectly constitutional background checks we do now.

Not true. First of all, background checks are not free, and cost $20. Second is that they invade privacy. Third is that historically they have always lead to illegal confiscation by a corrupt government. Forth is that there is no legal ability for government to deny anyone the right of self defense, even convicted felons who have served their time.
If there are people so dangerous they can't be trusted with weapons, then they can't be trusted with cars, flammables, fertilizer, poisons, or just about anything, and THEY need to be supervised constantly. You can't instead try to make the whole world nerf safe. That is impossible.
But the MAIN point is that background checks are always going to be irrelevant to criminals who already intend to violate far more serious laws.
All they do is harass and intimidate honest people.
Did the War on Drugs reduce drug availability?
No, it actually increased illegal drug availability by making the illegal market so profitable and by angering people with invasive nanny laws.
All laws like that do is increase murder by increasing the underground economy.
Make guns even more restricted and you increase murders through the increased underground economy.
We already know this from the mistake of Prohibition of Alcohol.
It always backfires, and can not possibly work.

Whether we should allow convicted felons to be armed is a different subject. The law now states that they aren't allowed to have guns, and universal background checks would help make that happen.

Why should felons not be allowed to own firearms? They did their time, paid their debt to society. Why shouldn't they be allowed to own firearms after they are out and free from parole? After all, that's what liberals are telling us now changing the laws for them to vote!!!! Or does that only work one way......the liberal way because it benefits them?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That must be it. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting (and passing into law) maximum magazine capacity. It couldn't have anything to do with some liberal cities passing laws against AR's. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting liability insurance for gun owners. It couldn't' have anything to do with liberals wanting gun manufacturers being held liable for murders committed by people using guns.

It has to do with Fox. And then you wonder why we refer to Democrats as the Uninformed Voters.

So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?

Not for hunting.

Not for target shooting.

Why?

BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.

I see you have no idea what the purpose of the second amendment is for.
It's not about hunting nor is it about target shooting
What is your qualitative experience on the use of deadly force? What gives you the ability to have an opinion on what an individual needs to prevail in a fight for their life?

If your gonna try to push that fantasy about overthrowing the government please spare me. It's bullshit and you all know it even though you won't admit it.

And my history is just that: mine. You wouldn't believe me if I told you anyway.

It's not fantasy...

Williams: Second Amendment Exists to Protect Us From Government

It is a fantasy, as ridiculous as it is wrong.

Nowhere in the text or case law of the Second Amendment do we find any reference to the wrongheaded notion that the Amendment ‘authorizes’ private citizens to ‘take up arms’ against a Federal government lawfully put into place by the people reflecting the will of the people.

In fact, the insurrectionist theory of the Second Amendment is completely devoid of merit and unsupported by the courts:

“…[the] linguistic gymnastics and historical reasoning in Heller may be suspect, but at least they are in service of a rational goal: the notion that people have a right to defend themselves against criminals. Nobody on the Court in Heller endorsed the insurrectionist theory as a guide to the contemporary meaning or implementation of the Second Amendment.”

Dorf on Law: The Resurrection of Second Amendment Insurrectionism is "Ted Cruz Crazy"

The Framers would not have amended the Constitution they just created with the means by which to destroy the Republic they had just created.

The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, not to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement,’ or to ‘deter crime,’ or to ‘overthrow’ a government incorrectly and subjectively perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’

So tell me how do you remove a dictator? Trumps president how would you remove him/

 

[BULLDOG]

We have some background checks, but not for all gun sales. Imagine if you only had to gave a safety inspection if you bought a car from a car lot. Individual sales didn't require them.

Very few firearms used in crimes are purchased from gun stores or gun shows. Most are stolen or purchased through straw buyers. So you could expand background checks all you like, but it won't put a dent in the criminal problems we have.

If very few guns used in crimes are bought from those sources, it shows the effectiveness of background checks. Why wouldn't you want to add guns bought from individual sellers to that list of effective ways to keep guns out of criminal's hands?

Lol
Abuse, you can’t trust the federal government to do the right thing. It’s impossible

Quit your whining. Universal background checks wouldn't limit anybody's ability to legally own guns any more than the perfectly constitutional background checks we do now.

Yes they would, because background checks cost money if nothing else.
Background checks also invade privacy, allow government to database, invade privacy, make mistakes, can delay up to a week, require ID and finger prints, can prevent immediate defense needs, and can't be done by private people. It illegally allows government to arbitrarily divide society into two tiers, where one has less rights than another. And that is inherently illegal. Anyone who should not be allowed a firearm, should not be allowed to live unsupervised and protected at any times.

You're off the deep end now. Sorry, but all that is too nuts for me.