What kind of horrible, dangerous places do these people live that hey have to go out armed?

[The2ndAmendment]

Have you ever wondered why the United States is generally a safe place to live?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The problem is stop and frisk worked. Violent crime went way down. Even after it was rescinded, crime continued to be at a lower rate until word got out.

Murder rate rises 55 percent in New York City, NYPD statistics say

And the problem was, the cops were very, very nervous because the community saw them as a bigger threat than the criminals. It was not a good time to be a cop in those days. You will notice that NYC doesn't have the cop "Murders" that the other cities are having right now. The Citizens cooperate much better with the Cops are taught how to approach a cop on the street. You are attributing stop and frisk as the answer. It was part of the problem. Cops and the Community as well as the Companies creating Jobs always was the answer. Stop and Frisk was deemed unconstitutional very quickly so it had almost zero affect except to cause some discontent in the community that the Cops had to win back.

The link I provided was posted 5 days ago. Let's see how this plays out the next couple of years. I'm willing to bet violent crime will continue to increase.

That's a bet you shouldn't take. And I won't bet on the other way around. A 7 week period is just someone looking for a news item when they are trying to make a slanted point. If you notice, using your own cite, almost all other crimes were down. Plus, the increase was attributed to just one area. And you can bet that there is an increase in law enforcement being done there today. You can't know where to increase your cops until AFTER it's needed.

The brothers are not focused in on the latest news items. It takes time for word to get around.....but it will eventually.

Unconstitutional? I don't know about that. We truck drivers are subject to our own stop and frisk and it's been going on for a long time now. Cops chase us down and pull us over for no other reason than to check out you and your truck. The last several times I got pulled over I asked what I was doing wrong? The general reply was "There was nothing wrong, but I'm going to find something wrong." Then they proceed to check out your entire truck, inside the cab, paperwork, freight inside the trailer, the whole ball of wax. A couple of times they made me open up the hood to check the engine compartment.

Of course if they did this with all motorists, there would be a rebellion. But because it only applies to trucks, nobody says a thing about it.

Then I suggest you get with your Truckers Assn and do something about....oh, that's right, you busted the union so you are on your own. Sucks to be you.

What......you don't think they have been on it already?

From what I read, it went up to the court that ruled random vehicle inspections is not a violation of the Constitution. Point being, search and seizure is subject to a judges ruling no matter what the Constitution says.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The brothers are not focused in on the latest news items. It takes time for word to get around.....but it will eventually.

Unconstitutional? I don't know about that. We truck drivers are subject to our own stop and frisk and it's been going on for a long time now. Cops chase us down and pull us over for no other reason than to check out you and your truck. The last several times I got pulled over I asked what I was doing wrong? The general reply was "There was nothing wrong, but I'm going to find something wrong." Then they proceed to check out your entire truck, inside the cab, paperwork, freight inside the trailer, the whole ball of wax. A couple of times they made me open up the hood to check the engine compartment.

Of course if they did this with all motorists, there would be a rebellion. But because it only applies to trucks, nobody says a thing about it.

Then I suggest you get with your Truckers Assn and do something about....oh, that's right, you busted the union so you are on your own. Sucks to be you.

Even when there was a union the cops did this. And, the unions drove most of the trucking companies out of business. Now there are only a few huge trucking companies. All of the independents are long gone. My friends dad worked for Churchill truck lines in Kansas City. The Teamsters went on strike even after the owner told them that he wouldn't survive if they did. They did anyway. 30 minutes later they all trooped out, and he closed his doors putting hundreds out of work.

Typical union morons.

How do I put this nicely. There are many businesses that shouldn't even be in business. The sooner we can get them done and gone the sooner we can allow the good businesses to flourish. Those hundreds had jobs waiting from the at good trucking companies. Right now, there is a huge shortage of Truckers. And the pay is pretty damned good. If I were 15 years younger I would be driving a Truck. It pays as well as the Oil Field, has about the same hours and it's a damn sight easier on the body. So don't give me that crap about how the Teamsters destroyed the business. If it had been a healthy business the Company would have been able to afford to options; work with the Union or pay the Drivers enough that they didn't need the Union in the first place. They chose to do neither for reasons of their own. It's not politics, it's business and economics.

I happen to know a lot about the Churchill Truck lines affair because of my friend. Care to guess what percentage of the employees didn't actually do any work thanks to the "work rules" the union imposed?

There are two major Beer Mfgs in the US and Canada; Coors and Anheuser-Busch. Coors is non union while Bush is Union. The Union has been trying to break into Coors for many decades. They fail because Coors pays their workers better than the Union Workers, has better benefits than any union can provide and the employee loyalty to Coors is just out of sight. So don't give me that crap about the evil union kills business. Unions are neither good nor bad. You use the threat of the Union to get fair treatment. If you can't get it then you need a union. If it breaks the company then the company probably shouldn't have been in business in the first place. Case in point; the company most in need of a friggin union is Walmart.

What unions do is make their companies not able to compete with non-union companies.

Yes, unions kill businesses. We've lost many customers because the company either left state or left the country altogether to get away from the unions. They simply can't compete with foreign made products. It's either get away from the union or join your employees in the unemployment line. No real choices.

Don't blame the companies either. Companies only provide their customers with what they want. The American consumer will not support union made products because of the price. They would sooner buy products from China or Korea before they'd pay twice as much for nearly the same item made in the USA. But back to trucking....

Years ago I was talking with a union driver while waiting at a stop. He got out of his truck and smiled as he said he just got overtime for hours he didn't have to work. The company was USF Holland who sold out some time ago. Anyway in the union contract, overtime is offered to the most senior drivers and works it's way down the list until they find a driver willing to work the overtime. If they offer the overtime to a driver with less seniority in the union, the company has to pay the driver overtime and the senior driver the same overtime for the same stop.

In other words because of the union, if somebody called in a pickup way on the other side of town, and sent the closest truck to make the pickup instead of the senior driver across town, they were forced to pay both drivers. The company had no choice because fuel wise, it wouldn't make sense to send a truck all the way across town when there is another one of their trucks right around the corner from the pickup.

Non-union operations don't run that way. When a stop gets called in, the company sends the nearest truck. How can a union company compete in price?

 

[westwall]

Then why would you care if I carried my gun?

After you read the truth you came up with all kinds of other ramifications of fires. Well......we could do the same with CCW carriers. After all, how many deaths have we stopped including our own?

Because gun nuts rarely have more training than that 3 or 4 hour course, and your lack of training could make me dead.

Your assertion is laughable at best. True gun enthusiasts are far more competent with firearms than cops are. That is shown whenever there is a competition. The cops with very few exceptions, almost always lose.

The results of any competition have no bearing on the comparative skills of the average gun nut or the average cop. Preparation for competition makes them different from the average.

Incorrect. One of the oldest adages in the military is "you fight the way you train".

The average gun nut doesn't do much training for that type situation. Even if they are an avid hunter and go to the gun range regularly, which most don't, that isn't training for a confrontational situation.

Wrong on all counts. The level of your ignorance is amazing to behold.

 

[westwall]

The brothers are not focused in on the latest news items. It takes time for word to get around.....but it will eventually.

Unconstitutional? I don't know about that. We truck drivers are subject to our own stop and frisk and it's been going on for a long time now. Cops chase us down and pull us over for no other reason than to check out you and your truck. The last several times I got pulled over I asked what I was doing wrong? The general reply was "There was nothing wrong, but I'm going to find something wrong." Then they proceed to check out your entire truck, inside the cab, paperwork, freight inside the trailer, the whole ball of wax. A couple of times they made me open up the hood to check the engine compartment.

Of course if they did this with all motorists, there would be a rebellion. But because it only applies to trucks, nobody says a thing about it.

Then I suggest you get with your Truckers Assn and do something about....oh, that's right, you busted the union so you are on your own. Sucks to be you.

Even when there was a union the cops did this. And, the unions drove most of the trucking companies out of business. Now there are only a few huge trucking companies. All of the independents are long gone. My friends dad worked for Churchill truck lines in Kansas City. The Teamsters went on strike even after the owner told them that he wouldn't survive if they did. They did anyway. 30 minutes later they all trooped out, and he closed his doors putting hundreds out of work.

Typical union morons.

How do I put this nicely. There are many businesses that shouldn't even be in business. The sooner we can get them done and gone the sooner we can allow the good businesses to flourish. Those hundreds had jobs waiting from the at good trucking companies. Right now, there is a huge shortage of Truckers. And the pay is pretty damned good. If I were 15 years younger I would be driving a Truck. It pays as well as the Oil Field, has about the same hours and it's a damn sight easier on the body. So don't give me that crap about how the Teamsters destroyed the business. If it had been a healthy business the Company would have been able to afford to options; work with the Union or pay the Drivers enough that they didn't need the Union in the first place. They chose to do neither for reasons of their own. It's not politics, it's business and economics.

I happen to know a lot about the Churchill Truck lines affair because of my friend. Care to guess what percentage of the employees didn't actually do any work thanks to the "work rules" the union imposed?

There are two major Beer Mfgs in the US and Canada; Coors and Anheuser-Busch. Coors is non union while Bush is Union. The Union has been trying to break into Coors for many decades. They fail because Coors pays their workers better than the Union Workers, has better benefits than any union can provide and the employee loyalty to Coors is just out of sight. So don't give me that crap about the evil union kills business. Unions are neither good nor bad. You use the threat of the Union to get fair treatment. If you can't get it then you need a union. If it breaks the company then the company probably shouldn't have been in business in the first place. Case in point; the company most in need of a friggin union is Walmart.

Answer the question I asked you. How much of the workforce did no work thanks to union work rules?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Then I suggest you get with your Truckers Assn and do something about....oh, that's right, you busted the union so you are on your own. Sucks to be you.

Even when there was a union the cops did this. And, the unions drove most of the trucking companies out of business. Now there are only a few huge trucking companies. All of the independents are long gone. My friends dad worked for Churchill truck lines in Kansas City. The Teamsters went on strike even after the owner told them that he wouldn't survive if they did. They did anyway. 30 minutes later they all trooped out, and he closed his doors putting hundreds out of work.

Typical union morons.

How do I put this nicely. There are many businesses that shouldn't even be in business. The sooner we can get them done and gone the sooner we can allow the good businesses to flourish. Those hundreds had jobs waiting from the at good trucking companies. Right now, there is a huge shortage of Truckers. And the pay is pretty damned good. If I were 15 years younger I would be driving a Truck. It pays as well as the Oil Field, has about the same hours and it's a damn sight easier on the body. So don't give me that crap about how the Teamsters destroyed the business. If it had been a healthy business the Company would have been able to afford to options; work with the Union or pay the Drivers enough that they didn't need the Union in the first place. They chose to do neither for reasons of their own. It's not politics, it's business and economics.

I happen to know a lot about the Churchill Truck lines affair because of my friend. Care to guess what percentage of the employees didn't actually do any work thanks to the "work rules" the union imposed?

There are two major Beer Mfgs in the US and Canada; Coors and Anheuser-Busch. Coors is non union while Bush is Union. The Union has been trying to break into Coors for many decades. They fail because Coors pays their workers better than the Union Workers, has better benefits than any union can provide and the employee loyalty to Coors is just out of sight. So don't give me that crap about the evil union kills business. Unions are neither good nor bad. You use the threat of the Union to get fair treatment. If you can't get it then you need a union. If it breaks the company then the company probably shouldn't have been in business in the first place. Case in point; the company most in need of a friggin union is Walmart.

Answer the question I asked you. How much of the workforce did no work thanks to union work rules?

There are not many unions around anymore because of their antics. When there were more around, I could go to a company I never heard of before, and within ten minutes, I could tell you if they were union or not. I'm no soothsayer, but I can tell by the attitude of the worker, the time I spend there, and how quickly or slowly I got loaded or unloaded.

The worst were the UAW workers. You could spend an entire day just trying to get unloaded at one of those places. It's not because there were too many trucks, it was because of the union workers. If they didn't feel like unloading you for three or four hours, they just didn't unload you. If your company charged the auto industry down time, well they just had to pay it and nothing they could do about it.

The one I used to go to was the Lordstown plant here in Ohio. They closed it down last week, and I'm surprised they lasted that long.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Stop and Frisk is unamerican and 'regular new yorkers' being denied guns and gun permits is both before and after Stop and Frisk . Course the Elites , politicians and big money people ALL have armed guards , security and HENCHMEN like YOU claim to be paid by Taxpayers 'mrguncontrol' Daryl .

You get what you vote for and New Yorkers consistently vote for all of these things, so apparently they enjoy being serfs on a manor with their lord in control of the land.

In comparison to Chicago, NYers enjoy safer streets, better jobs, better police and fire departments and more. Yes, you get what you vote for.

I’d rather have my liberty and deal with some uncertainty. You apparently would rather sacrifice some of your liberty to be a safeguarded subject of the crown and that’s your choice.

 

[Unkotare]

Yet you don't see the need to be armed with a fire extinguisher 24/7. Seems short sighted on your part, since you are so ready for a military style gun battle that is less likely than having a fire.

Military style gun battle, by defending myself from assault or death?

So what do you think the odds are of me dying in a building fire compared to me dying from an attack in the US?

You tell me. It's your story.

Odds of dying from gunfire assault, 1 in 306.

The Odds on How You Will Die

Odds of dying in a fire or explosion, 10.9 per million.

U.S. fire deaths, fire death rates, and risk of dying in a fire

Your figure for dying of a gunfire assault is wrong. The figure for is much lower. Let's take a look at the figure for armed robbery. It's 1 out of 167. That sounds pretty high. But it's pretty accurate. Now, consider that many of those are the same people being robbed multiple times because they are stupid. It's like burglars hitting the same home many times because the house is easy to rob. Stupid people squew the average. You can be stupid and be murdered, robbed, beaten, raped, etc. and keep those figures high or you can not be stupid and not be part of the statistics. I choose not to be part of the statistics, myself. If you keep going into those areas that are high in the statistics, guess what, you are being stupid. Just go somewhere else and not bve stupid.

Not always possible. For instance my job takes me in high crime areas at times. It's work and nothing I can do about it. My hospital is also in a high crime area, but thousands of people go there every single day.

As for where I live, it was once one of the nicest suburbs in the city until the blacks moved in. It's not a high-crime area, but we have enough shootings for it to be a concern. So I stay armed especially if I have to go to the store or bank after dark.

SpaaaaaaaaaaAaaaaaaaam...

 

[pismoe]

the thing with 'mrguncontrol' is that he wants and gets to be BOSS if he can make SUBJECTS of the American people . And then he also gets PAID by taxpayers for being BOSS and he get Authority by the Government . All those things make him SPECIAL .

 

[pismoe]

and as far as UNIONS go because i see Unions mentioned and correct me if i am wrong but Police have the strongest UNIONS possible and as Public Servants they should have NO Unions at all . .

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So very often I see conversations such as these:

Astonishing that you cant go for a walk without taking your gun.Its like living in a prison.

You have to wonder what kind of horrible, dangerous places do these people live that hey have to go out armed.

The obvious response:
The same places where we're told gun-violence is -so- bad that we need to further restrict the law abiding in their exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.
If gun violence is indeed that bad, how is it unreasonable to carry a gun for self-defense?

Why is the people who ask this question never want to discuss the answer?
How is it gun violence can be so bad that we need more gun control laws, but people who want to carry a gun to protect themselves are nuts?

What's nuts is people too stupid to understand why there's gun violence in cities in such as Chicago in spite their firearm regulatory measures.

What's nuts is buying into the "good guy with a gun" lie.

What's nuts is buying into the lie that citizens carrying concealed firearms helps to "reduce crime."

What's nuts is buying into the lie that mythical "gun-free zones" contribute to mass shootings.

What's nuts is opposing perfectly appropriate and constitutional firearm regulatory measures.

What's nuts is the slippery slope fallacy of "gun confiscation."

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So very often I see conversations such as these:

Astonishing that you cant go for a walk without taking your gun.Its like living in a prison.

You have to wonder what kind of horrible, dangerous places do these people live that hey have to go out armed.

The obvious response:
The same places where we're told gun-violence is -so- bad that we need to further restrict the law abiding in their exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.
If gun violence is indeed that bad, how is it unreasonable to carry a gun for self-defense?

Why is the people who ask this question never want to discuss the answer?
How is it gun violence can be so bad that we need more gun control laws, but people who want to carry a gun to protect themselves are nuts?

What's nuts is people too stupid to understand why there's gun violence in cities in such as Chicago in spite their firearm regulatory measures.

What's nuts is buying into the "good guy with a gun" lie.

What's nuts is buying into the lie that citizens carrying concealed firearms helps to "reduce crime."

What's nuts is buying into the lie that mythical "gun-free zones" contribute to mass shootings.

What's nuts is opposing perfectly appropriate and constitutional firearm regulatory measures.

What's nuts is the slippery slope fallacy of "gun confiscation."

Read the news sometime and you will see they are trying to confiscate one step at a time. A new regulation here, a new regulation there, and before you know it, all those regulations will add up to it being virtually impossible to own a firearm. That's why the cancer has to be stopped at first detection.

Democrats are like terrorists. They use increments to reach their ultimate goal and are plenty patient.

New Mexico's Democrat Gov. Signs Bill to Criminalize Private Gun Sales

 

[pismoe]

So very often I see conversations such as these:

Astonishing that you cant go for a walk without taking your gun.Its like living in a prison.

You have to wonder what kind of horrible, dangerous places do these people live that hey have to go out armed.

The obvious response:
The same places where we're told gun-violence is -so- bad that we need to further restrict the law abiding in their exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.
If gun violence is indeed that bad, how is it unreasonable to carry a gun for self-defense?

Why is the people who ask this question never want to discuss the answer?
How is it gun violence can be so bad that we need more gun control laws, but people who want to carry a gun to protect themselves are nuts?

What's nuts is people too stupid to understand why there's gun violence in cities in such as Chicago in spite their firearm regulatory measures.

What's nuts is buying into the "good guy with a gun" lie.

What's nuts is buying into the lie that citizens carrying concealed firearms helps to "reduce crime."

What's nuts is buying into the lie that mythical "gun-free zones" contribute to mass shootings.

What's nuts is opposing perfectly appropriate and constitutional firearm regulatory measures.

What's nuts is the slippery slope fallacy of "gun confiscation."

--------------------------------------- whats nuts is YOU thinking that most gun owners like ME even care about the reasons that you post just above . I only care about the Second Amendment going forward into USA History unmolested by YOU Gun Controllers Clayton . [speaking for myself Clayton]

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Military style gun battle, by defending myself from assault or death?

So what do you think the odds are of me dying in a building fire compared to me dying from an attack in the US?

You tell me. It's your story.

Odds of dying from gunfire assault, 1 in 306.

The Odds on How You Will Die

Odds of dying in a fire or explosion, 10.9 per million.

U.S. fire deaths, fire death rates, and risk of dying in a fire

Your figure for dying of a gunfire assault is wrong. The figure for is much lower. Let's take a look at the figure for armed robbery. It's 1 out of 167. That sounds pretty high. But it's pretty accurate. Now, consider that many of those are the same people being robbed multiple times because they are stupid. It's like burglars hitting the same home many times because the house is easy to rob. Stupid people squew the average. You can be stupid and be murdered, robbed, beaten, raped, etc. and keep those figures high or you can not be stupid and not be part of the statistics. I choose not to be part of the statistics, myself. If you keep going into those areas that are high in the statistics, guess what, you are being stupid. Just go somewhere else and not bve stupid.

Not always possible. For instance my job takes me in high crime areas at times. It's work and nothing I can do about it. My hospital is also in a high crime area, but thousands of people go there every single day.

As for where I live, it was once one of the nicest suburbs in the city until the blacks moved in. It's not a high-crime area, but we have enough shootings for it to be a concern. So I stay armed especially if I have to go to the store or bank after dark.

SpaaaaaaaaaaAaaaaaaaam...

Truuuuuuth.

 

[pismoe]

oh , and we need to stop infringing on the Second Amendment Infringement that already exist Clayton .

 

[westwall]

So very often I see conversations such as these:

Astonishing that you cant go for a walk without taking your gun.Its like living in a prison.

You have to wonder what kind of horrible, dangerous places do these people live that hey have to go out armed.

The obvious response:
The same places where we're told gun-violence is -so- bad that we need to further restrict the law abiding in their exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.
If gun violence is indeed that bad, how is it unreasonable to carry a gun for self-defense?

Why is the people who ask this question never want to discuss the answer?
How is it gun violence can be so bad that we need more gun control laws, but people who want to carry a gun to protect themselves are nuts?

What's nuts is people too stupid to understand why there's gun violence in cities in such as Chicago in spite their firearm regulatory measures.

What's nuts is buying into the "good guy with a gun" lie.

What's nuts is buying into the lie that citizens carrying concealed firearms helps to "reduce crime."

What's nuts is buying into the lie that mythical "gun-free zones" contribute to mass shootings.

What's nuts is opposing perfectly appropriate and constitutional firearm regulatory measures.

What's nuts is the slippery slope fallacy of "gun confiscation."

No, what is nuts is a ignorant twerp, like you, attempting to carry on a meaningful conversation with the adults. You got your ass handed to you during the election so you slunk off until people forgot, and now you're back yet again spewing your ridiculous, uninformed opinion. The limit of your discourse seems to be laughing at all of the points that you can't refute. in other words, you're a moron.

Go back under the rock you were hiding under.

 

[westwall]

So very often I see conversations such as these:

Astonishing that you cant go for a walk without taking your gun.Its like living in a prison.

You have to wonder what kind of horrible, dangerous places do these people live that hey have to go out armed.

The obvious response:
The same places where we're told gun-violence is -so- bad that we need to further restrict the law abiding in their exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.
If gun violence is indeed that bad, how is it unreasonable to carry a gun for self-defense?

Why is the people who ask this question never want to discuss the answer?
How is it gun violence can be so bad that we need more gun control laws, but people who want to carry a gun to protect themselves are nuts?

What's nuts is people too stupid to understand why there's gun violence in cities in such as Chicago in spite their firearm regulatory measures.

What's nuts is buying into the "good guy with a gun" lie.

What's nuts is buying into the lie that citizens carrying concealed firearms helps to "reduce crime."

What's nuts is buying into the lie that mythical "gun-free zones" contribute to mass shootings.

What's nuts is opposing perfectly appropriate and constitutional firearm regulatory measures.

What's nuts is the slippery slope fallacy of "gun confiscation."

Read the news sometime and you will see they are trying to confiscate one step at a time. A new regulation here, a new regulation there, and before you know it, all those regulations will add up to it being virtually impossible to own a firearm. That's why the cancer has to be stopped at first detection.

Democrats are like terrorists. They use increments to reach their ultimate goal and are plenty patient.

New Mexico's Democrat Gov. Signs Bill to Criminalize Private Gun Sales

clayton is an ignorant twat who thinks he knows more than he does. He is a classic example of D-K in action.

 

[Mike Dwight]

Have you ever heard a tale on the invention of Fork? The King of France was said to disallow the standard knives carried on people's person at his table, thus the Fork for eating. Leave a man's knife at the door. Sorry that this discussion goes on way too long, I guess. Is Murder actually on the modernistic Rise?! No one ever bothers to prove it.

 

[rightwinger]

I carry because the laws of my country and state say I have the right to.

You carry because you are a pussy

My 88 year old mother has no desire to carry a weapon when she goes out

 

[22lcidw]

So very often I see conversations such as these:

Astonishing that you cant go for a walk without taking your gun.Its like living in a prison.

You have to wonder what kind of horrible, dangerous places do these people live that hey have to go out armed.

The obvious response:
The same places where we're told gun-violence is -so- bad that we need to further restrict the law abiding in their exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.
If gun violence is indeed that bad, how is it unreasonable to carry a gun for self-defense?

Why is the people who ask this question never want to discuss the answer?
How is it gun violence can be so bad that we need more gun control laws, but people who want to carry a gun to protect themselves are nuts?

What's nuts is people too stupid to understand why there's gun violence in cities in such as Chicago in spite their firearm regulatory measures.

What's nuts is buying into the "good guy with a gun" lie.

What's nuts is buying into the lie that citizens carrying concealed firearms helps to "reduce crime."

What's nuts is buying into the lie that mythical "gun-free zones" contribute to mass shootings.

What's nuts is opposing perfectly appropriate and constitutional firearm regulatory measures.

What's nuts is the slippery slope fallacy of "gun confiscation."

You are not believed anymore. I support people carrying handguns and have no problem if they shoot someone or more for attacking them for wearing hats. I have no issue of being in a jury if that happens and the person will be innocent to me. Perhaps you never have experienced threats. It is fun. And there are people in power fiefdoms the same way.