The great fizzle:
…the assault weapons ban has been deep-sixed by Democrats in the Senate. Same with any limit on the size of magazines. The argument now is all about increasing the reach of background checks, although any bill that can pass the Senate and the House will be much less extensive than the president or his supporters would like.
The gun control debate has shown the president again to be hopelessly detached as a legislative mechanic and ineffectual as a shaper of public opinion. Before writing rhetorical checks that his own party’s majority leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, couldn’t cash, the president might have at least consulted with the wily old son-of-a-gun about what was plausible and adjusted accordingly. He might have taken into consideration Reid’s ribbon-cutting ceremony with National Rifle Association honcho Wayne LaPierre at the Clark County Shooting Park in Las Vegas in 2010.
Once again, we’re saved from the fecklessness of the electorate by his incompetence.
The whole “gun control” debate is mis-named. Real gun control is hitting where you aim. What the Dems are attempting is citizen control.
We’re lucky….this time.
“We’re lucky….this time.”
“This time,” indeed. They’ll be back. The Hive never rests.
Agreed, we are lucky this time, and they will be back. We’re two, perhaps three, SCOTUS justice appointments by BHO (or Biden or HRC) away from the 2nd Amendment being gutted. What about the Heller decision, you ask? Does anyone believe Kagan, Sotomayor, and others BHO may appoint will respect stare decisis if given an opportunity to severely restrict firearm ownership, and the types of firearms and magazines that the general citizenry may own? I would not bet my firearms or my life on stare decisis on this subject by BHO appointees.
And if / when they ‘gut’ the 2nd Amendment, you think American gun owners, will just walk into their local cop shop and turn over their firearms en masse?
Unless Congress votes every SCOTUS Member and themselves, a full time Company of SpecOps trained Security people, for LIFE, they’ll NEVER find it in themselves to kill the 2nd Amendment. I don’t think they are SO ideologically hide bound to put their own hides on the line. That’s why so many of the (D)’s have backed away from this issue and why they didn’t vote FOR the U.N. Arms Treaty.
Besides this, why would they go after the 2nd Amendment, when DHS can gut the ammo supplies with contracts for BILLIONS of rounds of every style of ammo but BBs and .177 pellets? And they’ve got that right now. There are literally millions of new gun owners right now, who have ONE pistol, rifle or shotgun, and one box or NO ammunition for said gun(s). DHS has stopped gun owners from getting ammo.
On Friday, I got ammo I ordered on November 15th!
And some I ordered that day is on back order, long term, NO delivery date available. And I buying just about THE most common types of shells for shotguns and rifle and pistol stuff around. Nothing exotic at all. If everyone in the country has a GUN, but can’t get ammo, the 2nd Amendment is already gutted, just not on paper.
Besides this, why would they go after the 2nd Amendment, when DHS can gut the ammo supplies with contracts for BILLIONS of rounds of every style of ammo but BBs and .177 pellets?
I doubt they’re that stupid. They’ll run out of money (and yes, I’m aware the US has printed many trillions of dollars in the last few years) before the manufacturers run out of bullets.
Yes, Senator Reid has earned his high rating from the NRA over the years by being rational about guns.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/274249-time-for-senator-harry-reid-to-take-a-stand-on-gun-control
[[[In 2010, when Reid was engaged in a bitter re-election campaign against Republican Sharron Angle, the NRA refrained from endorsing, but contributed to Reid’s campaign and reminded voters of his pro-gun record. An NRA letter to its Nevada members touted that Reid “opposed the Obama administration’s interest in reinstating the assault weapons ban, halting momentum; helped pass a law that allows gun owners to carry firearms in national parks; voted against the District of Columbia’s gun ban; voted for legislation to allow pilots in commercial airline cockpits to be armed.”]]]
Yes, imagine if Sharon Angle had won and some other democrat had been senate majority leader… But Nevadans knew what they were doing when they re-elected him, even if those on this discussion board didn’t understand it.
“Yes, imagine if Sharon Angle had won and some other democrat had been senate majority leader… But Nevadans knew what they were doing when they re-elected him, even if those on this discussion board didn’t understand it.”
And you accuse me of snark?
First of all, it is common knowledge among political geeks that a mixture of union support from the Hospitality/Gaming Industry in Nevada along with being a pro-2nd Amendment Democrat (and Sharon Angle being a weak candidate), is how Mr. Reid was reelected.
The leadership of the Nevada NRA may have “gamed the system” in supporting a key Democratic leader who is on “their side.” But to suggest that the people in Nevada thought, “Gee, if we elect a Republican who better represents our views but if the Republicans don’t get control of the Senate then we take a pro 2nd Amendment Democrat out of a key leadership position”, I mean, how does a person come up with such a cockamamie theory, through data mining of exit polls or something?
Paul,
Glad you finally acknowledge the Tea Party favorite dumped on Nevada by outsiders, IAP member Sharron Angle, was a “weak” candidate that few in Nevada supported. A TRUE Republican would have won easily as the polls showed before the primary.
As for union support, are you saying members of unions shouldn’t be allowed to vote? Of course they voted for Senator Reid since he has been a good friend of the gaming industry. Why would you expect anything else?
No, what the folks in Nevada thought was “we could elect a nut case that would be representing the out of state interests that bankrolled her instead of Nevadans or we could elect someone who cares about Nevada. And yes, that would include gun rights since those are important to Nevadans. But then if you lived in Nevada you would know that 🙂
If Reid is so good on Second Amendment issues, how did he get to be such a State-fellator in other areas?
What’s with the snark? No, you are not “glad” except in the satisfaction of believing you have scored a debating point.
What is with this “finally acknowledge” bit? If you had followed by posts and including the disagreements I had gotten into here, you would know that I am far from a Party-line TEA Party person.
And what is with the snark that I am saying union members shouldn’t vote? How do you make the leap when I speculate that Senator Reid’s electoral coalition is an amalgamation of works in the Hospitality and Gaming industries in Nevada and “outdoorsy” people who favor 2nd Amendment protection?
What negative value did I ever ascribe to unions, especially in light of remarks I made around here starting, say, Feb 2011?
And what is with that smiley face? Is the lame cartoon grin the sign of unseriousness?
Not only has the Revolution’s gun ban failed, it has produced a huge population of Americans who have been brought to the point of contemplating armed resistance to federal authority.
And it has put a massive amount of guns and ammunition into the hands of this population.
Just as the Spanish Republic’s policies created the will to resist among the rank and file of the country’s Right, the Obama/Pelosi/Cuomo/Reid axis of stupidity has forged a spirit of enmity towards the federal government among America’s millions of gun owners. It would take very little more anti-gun action on the part of our republic to trigger the formation of American requetes — and perhaps an American Franco to lead them.
Huh, fantasizing about an American Franco.You realize he was a fascist, right?
@Dave, April 7, 2013, 12:14 am:
With all due respect: it is obvious that, like most people, you know nothing of Spanish Civil War, nor of what fascism is.
Franco was not a fascist. Somebody told you he was a fascist, but he was in fact not a fascist.
Whoever told you that Franco was a fascist was either sincerely mistaken or a man with an agenda. You became part of his agenda when you accepted his story as fact.
What passes in our society as the history of the Spanish Civil War is in fact almost completely propaganda — a sour-grapes story put out by academics sympathetic to the losing side in an attempt to make their hero Stalin look like a saint. The facts about Franco, and about the war, are carefully hidden or distorted in order to make the bad guys in that war appear to be good.
Don’t be fooled. Educate yourself about this important chapter in the history of the Western world. A good beginning to such an education is The Last Crusade: Spain, 1936, by the late Dr. Warren Carroll, the founder and first president of Christendom College.
Please note that I am not affiliated in any way with the late Dr. Carroll’s estate, his publisher, nor with Christendom College.
No offense, B Lewis, but Franco’s government was basically a copy of Fascist Italy. And how come it took Franco’s death before Spain transitioned back to a democracy?
Franco was no angel. I saw his mausoleum/shrine up near San Lorenzo. It’s pretty amazing – google it up and have a look at the images. It showed me I do not understand the mind of your average Spaniard. Or, at least the Spaniard of the 70’s.
On the other hand, yeah he was a fascist and the Germans helped him out. But the other side were commies and the Soviets helped THEM out. It was Messerschmidts vs Polikarpovs. The two Socialist sides had been fighting for primacy for years. For the Spanish people it was a case of “pick your poison”.
Franco was a lot of things. I don’t think he personally held to any one philosophy, except that of Nationalist Spain and that of Generalissimo Franco. Note that after the Civil War, he disposed of the worst of the Falangist firebreathers by ‘volunteering’ them to go die on the Eastern Front… and, for all of their investments in Franco, Adolph and Benito never got a dime on the dollars’ worth of return.
Last note: When Franco died, he left as a legacy a Spain ready to have a peaceful transfer to a democratic government. Not many other strongmen, no matter the stripe, can say the same.
” Adolph and Benito never got a dime on the dollars’ worth of return.”
Not entirely true:
The Luftwaffe worked out tactics and eliminated crummy tactical ideas all in Spain. By the time Sept. 1, 1939 rolled around, the Luftwaffe had figured out a lot that the Brits and the U.S. still had to learn. This gave them tremendous advantages.
They also worked the bugs out of equipment.
Lastly, Spain was a proxy war – pretty much like the proxy wars the US v USSR waged. The fact that Franco won meant that Germany didn’t have to continue West after France fell – their rear was secure and they could get on with the main event – Russia.
And then, of course, there’s the political victory of defeating the Commies.
Germany’s efforts in Spain were pretty low cost and returned very nice dividends.
Actually the Germans got a lot of false leads out of the Spanish Civil War, many of which cost them dearly when it came to fighting real opponents a few years later.
1) The effectiveness of light anti-tank guns (20mm and 37mm in particular) was vastly overstated, and led the Germans to retain these almost useless weapons (and keep tanks based upon them) well past the first year of the Russian campaign. This led to some embarassing moments during the Fall of France, when French CharBs and British Matildas proved essentially invulnerable to German antitank armament, and not to mention the nasty surprise that the Germans recieved from the T-34’s sloped armor.
2) The effectiveness of dive bombers was massively overstated, and their vulnerability to modern fighter aircraft was overstated.
3) The problems with small armored columns leading large infantry forces (most particularly with the former becomign separated from the latter, allowing ‘trapped’ forces to filter out and escape) were masked by terrain and logistical problems. This proved to be a huge issue once the Germans got into Russia, and allowed major parts of the Red Army to escape capture.
4) The Italians (who didn’t perform all that badly) got a grossly overstated view of their own competence (the forces involved were mostly elites), which led Benny to overestimate what he could do with them later
5) The ability of mobile columns to operate without truck-based logistics (most of the German army was dependent upon horses) was overstated because of the distances involved and the nature of the fighting, leading the Germans to deemphasize the motorization of their logistics echelons
Quite frankly, the Brits and French excused their own incompetence (and outright stupidity) when war came to them by pretending that the Germans got some special insights from Spain, when in fact they got very little, certainly nothing that anyone observing the war (and there were plenty of Western observers who reported what they saw, including some fairly competent military ones) wouldn’t have been able to tell them.
Gregg: Franco’s deal with the Fascisti was for cadre and supplies (and ended up including ‘volunteers’ as well), which he got; he offered in return big percentages of his mining production and finished goods, political favor, and to enter the war (and, of course, provide forces) on the side of the Axis.
If memory serves he delivered less than a tenth what he promised in terms of goods and materials, went neutral ASAP, and never entered the war at all. Basically he faked ‘Dolph and Benny out of their undershorts.
As far as tactics and equipment go , f1bonacc1 pretty much nails it down: in general, the Germans came out of Spain with a lot of Manchurian Theories some of which cost them dearly.
Well Fibb and DaveP and I disagree as far as the benefits to the Luftwaffe are concerned, and that’s a nice topic for a fun discussion but this is the gun control topic.
“Not only has the Revolution’s gun ban failed, it has produced a huge population of Americans who have been brought to the point of contemplating armed resistance to federal authority.”
That’s the basis of what I said and believe. Anyone who thinks it’s not possible, probable or doable needs to read “Unintended Consequences”. It’s also a ‘play book’ of HOW to beat the control freak Left and take back our country to a level of Citizens Freedoms we’ve lost over the last 90 or 100 years.
The debate isn’t over. With today’s Progressives, it’s never over.
The environment. Social issues such as gay marriage and reparations. Roe v. Wade. Did any of the activists’ early victories “settle” the issue, or did they all grow beyond anything originally envisioned?
Gun control was a “dead issue” as recently as November 2012, even after the Aurora shooting. Sandy Hill merely allowed today’s gun grabbing elites to activate their long-developed, well-planned initiatives.
Gun control may have been set back at the Federal level, but we’re losing at the State level as the Coastal Elites try to out-do each other with newer, more strict State laws.
No, this issue still has yet to be resolved. Wake up – we’re actually losing….
You are probably right that the pro-gun control side never rests. But it is the federal level particularly the SCOTUS that I worry about the most. Things passed by Congress are not that easily repealed. Those Federal justices like Kagan and Sota Mayer (and whatever other ones BA appoints) could be with us for 40 + years easily. A bad state decision can be fixed, at least in theory come the next election, a bad SCOTUS decision could easily be with us for a lifetime. In my state of Ohio, the legislatures & even the judges including the Ohio Supreme Court have to face the voters regularly. Furthermore in my state and many others the voters can pass laws directly by ballot initiative, which in OH is like amending the constitution, and can’t be easily overturned by the legislature. There is no such option at the Federal level. I understand that the sweeping gun control passed in NY State by Cuomo is likely to be overturned, or at least parsed down by court challenge (I hope.) It is even possible that the one concealed carry hold out state Illinois could fall in the not too distant future.
Bartelist,
there’s an easy way to defeat the Coastal Goons and their gun grabs, at a personal level.
MOVE.
Find a state where they aren’t doing these things. Better still, find a state with a history of and vocal stance NOW of fighting gun grabs. Is it tough, is it expensive, is it a pita? Yes on all counts. But many of us HAVE and continue to do so.
But is it easier or better to sit still and watch the laws / rules change until you see no way to defend your family, until your is wife raped / murdered, your kids get abused / raped / murdered, your home is ransacked, somebody in the family is car jacked or killed in a drive by…on until and into a possible infinity of bad events?
Moving and uprooting the family to find a safer place to be, work and raise a family has brought millions of people TO the U.S. Now, moving with the country is the only answer, IMO.
Not only did it fail, they awoke the sleeping giant.
If you are going to Kill the King, you better finish the job. All they did was piss gun owners off royally.
And the thing is, they really can’t “Kill the King” without abandoning democracy. There’s just too many gun advocates out there. I think the sweet spot for gun control would have been in the seventies through nineties. You started having the modern phenomena of televised mass shooting and that was new and frightening. The public was more likely to do something about it. Now, it’s just something that happens every few weeks. Most people are inured to the limited violence and no longer hysterical about widespread gun ownership.
Instead, I’d say that trying to time gun control attempts with media events is backfiring. For example, in Colorado, they probably had the votes for a time to limit magazine size, but by timing that with the Newtown school shooting they publicly demonstrated mendacity. I think they’ll lose more votes from exploiting the deaths of children than they’d gain and that will get worse as they continue to use that strategy.
Karl Hallowell said, “You started having the modern phenomena of televised mass shooting and that was new and frightening.”
My wife and I spent most of the weekend with my NYC raised cousin, and her NC country boy raised husband here in central NC. I have my CCH and I don’t even go to my mailbox without my pistol on my belt.
When we got there Fri night, I asked if I could put my pistol on top of the fridge, as it was THE highest point in the house without going on TOP of the kitchen cabinets. They’re in the early to mid 60’s no kids around, and their only ‘child’ grandchild is 4 y/o, unable to get on top of the fridge.
So, I asked, as I have 10 times going over there, with her hands pulled up to her chest and grimacing, she asked me, “…EWWW, is that LOADED?!”
So, for at LEAST the 10th time I told her I keep it loaded ALL the time, 24 x 7 and it stays that way unless I’m cleaning it or it’s just a $400 metal ROCK.
Later on we were talking about guns and she was telling us about waking up her husband recently, her husband Larry is born and bred NC country boy and probably one of THE smartest people I know about damned near everything including guns. She woke him up because she heard a noise outside, so he got the gun and went outside, he’s got tens of thousand of $$$ worth of tools in his shop, but he didn’t find anything. But she said while he was out there, she was worried that he WOULD shoot somebody IF he caught them out there! To which he said, “…you’re GD right I’d shoot somebody if I catch them stealing from around our house or stealing from our shop! Would you rather they shoot ME?”
She stopped for 3 seconds and said she just didn’t know how to answer those questions. I just shook my head.
She’s been here 27 years, she’s been living with or married to this man for 20 years of that, he’s got several pistols and a shotty or two, and she woke him up and said get the gun I heard a noise, but my cousin STILL thinks…wait, wait, WAIT…FEELS like a NYC liberal about everything, especially hot button lib stuff like guns. So much so that she cant decide that it’s preferred to defend yourself, over getting hurt or killed if that means harming anyone with a gun.
So there are STILL plenty of people who can’t make the simple step of defending themselves our those around them, over becoming a victim. She told my wife, she wasn’t even sure she could pick UP a gun to defend her 4 y/o granddaughter. I told her IF it was MY kid, and they used to stay there plenty, I’d be hard pressed to leave them with her.
Sadly there are MILLIONS of these indoctrinated nuts who vote!
So there are STILL plenty of people who can’t make the simple step of defending themselves our those around them, over becoming a victim.
Those people aren’t going to act any different (well, at least until something bad happens to people they love). But I guess my point is that I doubt scary news stories mint more of them any more.
“So there are STILL plenty of people who can’t make the simple step of defending themselves our those around them, over becoming a victim.”
Agreed however most people are never under threat. Especially the coastal elites. Getting mugged does open some people’s eyes. But the elites assume life for everyone else is like theirs. That’s one reason they employ the phrase “You don’t need…….”
…they haven’t walked in other people’s shoes.
A big fizzle? Don’t believe that for a minute! Universal background checks are the big enchilada for the people who want to control. Sure keep, normal capacity mags, “assault rifles”, ammo, etc. While you’re laughing at their failures to get those, they’ll come in the blind side and put the knife in with universal background checks. They’ll be in place for a some years, till they become the “norm” – then they’ll twist it. Schumer or another of his ilk will pull funding for the agency that does background checks. Congress has already done this by pulling funding to allow restoration of gun rights to felons. Don’t get complacent, don’t pat yourself on the back, fight for you life. The gun control people couldn’t have asked for a better article to help them fleece the sheep. – Ed Kelleher
“You are probably right that the pro-gun control side never rests.”
Correct. The latest ploy is the gun and ammo special tax:
“CHICAGO — Cook County, Ill., this month began collecting a $25 tax on gun purchases, and at least six states are considering new taxes on firearms or ammunition as a way to help pay for the consequences of gun violence.”
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/07/gun-taxes-owners-second-amendment/2049363/
For now it’s a $25 tax. Small enough such that the gun-grabbers hope that most people won’t take notice or mind….
But then of course once the tax is firmly enshrined, it’ll rise and rise FAST.
Note the phrase “…..a way to help pay for the consequences of gun violence.”
This is where the Pro-2nd Amendment side misses a golden opportunity:
There simply is not enough reportage and counter-argument listing all the lives and property saved by private gun ownership.
Neutrals, fence-sitters and Lo-Fo’s hear things like:
“The tax won’t necessarily serve as a deterrent to gun buyers, she says, but “it’s an acknowledgment that we as a society pay a terrible price for the proliferation of guns.”
and it all sounds so reasonable. But the facts are that there’s a large GAIN to society from gun ownership but that side is not heard equally.
Pro-Gun rights organizations should CHALLENGE the gun grabbers – on tv – to state how many lives were saved through the use of firearms. The gun-grabbers will have no answer. And then you simply say – until you present the facts you have no argument; you are just lying to society; you are showing only one side.. Here are the facts……
Because you cannot say that the cost is too high unless the benefits have been measured and reported.
Other questions that should be asked:
Why are people innocent in relation to gun crimes being fined $25 to pay for crimes caused by other people with guns?
Are we going to add a $25 fee on knives? Baseball bats? Frying Pans?
“Why are people innocent in relation to gun crimes being fined $25 to pay for crimes caused by other people with guns?”
Excellent question.
Are we going to add a $25 fee on knives?
And sadly, we have this in the news today: Several stabbed at Lone Star College
3 had injuries requiring evacuation by helicopter. At least another 5 had less minor injuries. Still early.
Knives, baseball bats and frying pans have other uses. Guns do not. Except, that is I suppose, for the subsidiary use in practicing to be better at the primary use.
The other use of a baseball bat is far less useful than either the hunting value or personal protection value of a firearm. In fact, the primary use of a baseball is the subsidiary use in practicing to be better at the primary use. So your suggesting baseball bats should have a fine as well?
“Knives, baseball bats and frying pans have other uses. Guns do not.”
You do not get to decide what is useful for other people. How can you possibly know? You cannot. That’s the entire point here. The government, as formed, is not allowed to decide what is and is not useful to a free individual.
This is at the root of the entire issue regarding “You don’t need….”
Good point, although I see Fletcher is already trying to argue against it. We have unfortunately gone this road awhile of taxing things we don’t like in order to create a social change. Cigarettes and Alcohol being the two most common. So why not tax firearms? And the good answer is the 2nd Amendment, which no significant count of people seems interested in eliminating directly.
Anyway, Fletcher’s argument is moot in terms of the rational being used to pass the tax. That rational claims taxation to pay for other crimes. The issue of knives and baseball bats is they to can be used for crime. That they have other useful applications is both argumentative and irrelevant. The issue is raising revenue for the victims of crime. If giving money to the victims of crime is truly the issue, then why not tax things that are more often used in crime, such as knives? And don’t use statistics that count suicide by firearms, because why should we ever tax others to give money to the victims of suicide?
Gregg – What other uses do guns have (other than display, I suppose) than making holes in things at a distance?
Fletcher,
What is the complete list of *uses* for making holes in things at some distance?
You see – the making of holes is a means, but not the use (ends).
You are focused on how it achieves it’s goal. What’s important are the list of uses for that capability.
Gregg – What other uses do guns have (other than display, I suppose) than making holes in things at a distance?
Knives and baseball bats have similar “uses”. Knives cut things. Bats hit things. That sounds pretty destructive to me. Better throw taxes on them.
………….. Crickets ……………
Ok we all know this is true but the Lib-Dems have admitted it (again for about the 5th time):
“Democratic Austin City Council member and potential next mayor Mike Martinez admitted during a speech that the Obama administration’s long term gun control agenda is focused on banning firearms altogether.
Pointing out a sign held by a protester which read, “stop gun ban!,” Martinez remarked, “someone needs to inform him that there is no gun ban currently, but because of the work we’re doing here today, we will make your sign legitimate shortly, so you hang on to that.” The crowd cheered as Martinez made his vow.”
And lest we forget:
Back in 1995, current Attorney General Eric Holder called for authorities to “brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.”
In the same year, current California Senator and gun control pioneer Dianne Feinstein told 60 Minutes, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up [every gun]… Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in.”
And let us not forget Gov. Cuomo:
“In the interview, Mr. Cuomo did not offer specifics about the measures he might propose, but, while discussing assault weapons, he said: “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.” ”
To even *hint* that confiscation or mandatory sale to the state is an option is quite terrifying if you value the Constitution.
Even permitting would go against the 2nd Amendment. It is sad that NY has such a low level of education in regards to civil liberties and the US Constitution.
So the VP says in a speech:
“certain weapons of war just don’t belong on the street.”
Well Plugs why don’t you crack down on criminals and get them off the street instead of hassling law abiding citizens?
“If there had only been ten bullets in each clip, [the shooter] would have had to change the clip an additional three to five times. One of those kids would be alive. Somebody would be alive,” he said.
He said it but he’s totally clueless. I can eject and replace a handgun clip in much less than 1 second. It would have made ZERO difference. Especially since the adults were unarmed.
“What is the inconvenience? What are we doing? What are we doing to impact on a gun owners’ right if he only has a clip with ten rounds in it instead of 30 rounds in it?” he asked.
You are impacting a gun owner’s right of self defense because if the law abiding citizen is attacked by two or more he/she just might need those extra rounds.
Also you are utterly incapable of predicting what a person might need. Furthermore you are not allowed by the Constitution to act on that.
And you are violating your oath to uphold the Constitution because the amendment says, quite clearly “shall not be infringed.” You are changing the Bill of Rights without going through the Constitutional process laid out to do so.
other than that there’s nothing wrong with what Plugs said.
sheesh.