Another Shooting

IrishSteelhead

All Flair, No Substance
Messages
11,114
Reaction score
4,686
Another Shooting

#BREAKING: Dick's Sporting Goods to stop selling assault-style rifles and high-capacity magazines, and won't sell any firearms to anyone under 21 : https://t.co/fZ5uesxGwz— WTHR.com (@WTHRcom) February 28, 2018



Good for Dick's Sporting Goods. I think it's perfectly reasonable for a private company to make this decision. I can nitpick a few things, but it's not worth it. (They don't define any of the vocabulary in the letter, so I'd like clarification on some terms."



Who buys a gun from Dicks? This is like buying a car from CarMax or a cell phone from Best Buy or a PlayStation from Kohls....or a
 
Last edited:

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,954
Reaction score
11,239
Who buys a gun from Dicks? This is like buying a car from CarMax or a cell phone from Best Buy.

tenor.gif
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
.

.

.
I think capacity is your sweet spot for successful legislation. Most people are able to wrap their heads around that. As for the mechanism...the semi auto is mostly limited by mechanical cycling, and the reflexes of the shooter...things like bump stocks circumvent limitation... retrofits intended for the purpose of increased throughput...I would argue thats probably not safe to shooter on an out of the box barrel. And of course, the rapid fire creates a near automatic effect. Bullets are tough to restrict. I guess you could try and draw a line around certain bullet constructions.

However...I hope everyone understands what the reality is. The ease with which magazines of high capacity can be printed/constructed at home, and the number of high capacity magazines that are already out there...when would you expect to see an impact from legislative action? I believe you may not live to see an improvement in death toll for a mass murder event by limiting capacity through legislative means. Personally I believe this effort is like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube. But maybe someone can make it so, and find a way to make it be effective.
You make points on the difficulties of gun control legislation that, unless there are changes in our culture or consensus opinion, paint a dark picture for the future, especially considering our homicide rate per capita. Worth noting is that 98% of homicides are committed with handguns. A recent analysis of mass murderers show that 22% might be categorized as having some kind of mental disorder with the same criteria in the general population is 1%. So focusing strictly on mental disorders does nto address the problem and more of a canard by those who wish to preserve the status quo.

Registration, documentation of sales, background checks and restrictions on some types of weapons and/or ammunitions fall within the interstate commerce powers of the federal government. States can and do pass legislation that can restrict some commerce within the state and other regulations to protect their citizens from what they perceive as a public health problem.


very easily said....hard to establish mental criteria. Even harder to find a group of people trusted enough to objectively apply the criteria sans their politics. But yea...seems pretty logical...do not let people who are already known to have issues have a gun.

Mental criteria based on admission type is easily established - involuntary admission by a probate court, voluntary admissions to psych hospitals, and, in some places, a physician's certification emergency certification that allows hospitalization for a period of time (15 days in one state) based on the criteria that people are deemed disabled or a danger to themselves or others.


Registrations hadn't bugged me. better data sharing and availability are ok with me.
...can't resist though...how many people do you think drive w/o license/registration/and insurance...

It would appear I had to defer, due to Honey Dos and Kid interruptions :).

There is no requirement that mental illness hospitalizations or those hospitalized as dangers to themselves or others be reported to the National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS) by states. Unfortunately for mandatory universal background checks, the interim provisions of the Brady were challenged and upheld by SCOTUS in Printz v. U.S. which gun rights advocate groups funded. Each state can choose to establish such a database and report these to NICS. Over 5,000 voluntary psych admissions have been entered into Connecticut's database and reported to NICS, New York entered over 34,000, Florida entered over 140,00, Wyoming has entered four.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
So there was a teacher with a gun who barricaded himself in a room in a school in Dalton, GA.

Cant make this shit up.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
So uh... Trump is out there talking about taking guns without due process.

Because he says whatever comes into his head. I will never understand how he became the "tells it like it is" candidate, he is the king of double-speak. The subreddit r/trumpcriticizestrump is a gold mine on the matter.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
So uh... Trump is out there talking about taking guns without due process.
No. Connecticut led the way in what are called Red Flag laws.

Why ‘Red Flag Laws’ Are Gaining Bipartisan Support After Parkland
(New York Magazine)
As the survivors of last week’s school shooting in Parkland, Florida, try to build a movement to end gun violence, there have been new calls for “red flag laws,” which allow law enforcement to seize the firearms of people believed to be a danger to themselves or others. Gun control advocates have been pushing for these gun-violence restraining orders for several years, and in the last week a handful of conservatives have embraced them as well, saying they empower people to do something when they see someone at risk of committing gun violence, without infringing on the rights of other gun owners. Here’s what you need to know about the legislation.

What do red flag laws do?
Current federal and state gun control laws are mainly focused on preventing dangerous people from purchasing firearms. Under federal law a person can be entered into the federal background check database if they’re involuntarily committed to a mental hospital, or if a court or government declares them mentally incompetent. States are encouraged (but not required) to share these records with the the National Instant Criminal Background check system.

Theoretically, this should prevent people the state has deemed mentally ill from purchasing firearms at a licensed gun shop. But as we’ve seen with Nikolas Cruz, who’s accused of killing 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, even if someone is displaying warning signs of violent behavior, they’re free to purchase and possess firearms if they’ve yet to commit a crime and haven’t come into contact with the state mental health system.

Red flag laws aim to fix this by giving family members and law enforcement officers the ability to petition the court to temporarily seize the firearms of someone believed to be at risk. If a judge is convinced that the person poses a danger, they can quickly order them to surrender their firearms. Within a few weeks, the court holds a full hearing on whether the restrictions should be dropped or extended for up a year. The gun owner has opportunities to petition to have their weapons returned.

Connecticut passed the first such law in 1999, allowing only law enforcement to request a “risk warrant.” In 2014, California became the first state to allow family members, as well as law enforcement, to seek firearms restraining orders. That law was passed shortly after 22-year-old Elliot Rodger killed six people with a knife and a gun in Isla Vista, California, though his parents had contacted the police with concerns about his behavior. Similar laws have been passed in Washington, Oregon, and Indiana.

Have red flag laws been successful?
Most of the laws were implemented too recently to tell. However, a 2016 study by Jeffrey Swanson, a psychiatry professor at Duke University’s School of Medicine, and nine other researchers, suggested that Connecticut’s law may have reduced the number of suicides. While homicides draw more attention, about 60 percent of gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides.

From 1999 to 2013, 762 gun-violence prevention warrants were issued in the state. Researchers found that 21 of those people later committed suicide, and six used guns. As The Atlantic explains, they then tried to calculate how many suicides had been averted:

To estimate how likely subjects of the restraining orders would have been to use a gun on themselves, had they retained their firearms, Swanson and his team used national data on how likely male gun owners are to use a gun to attempt suicide. That comparison lead researchers to expect that, if the subjects of the restraining orders had remained armed, there would have been at least 71 additional suicides. That rough estimate equates to one averted suicide for every 10 to 11 guns seized in Connecticut.

The study also found that in in 44 percent of the cases, the request for a risk warrant led to the person receiving psychiatric treatment.

More states are considering implementing similar laws to Connecticut's. How it works:
Disarming Prohibited Persons in Connecticut (Gifford's Law Center)

This action is taken usually in domestic violence cases.
Connecticut prohibits the possession of a firearm by a person who knows that he or she is subject to a restraining or protective order that was issued after notice has been provided to the person in a case involving the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person, or a foreign order of protection in a case involving the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force against another person.5

Here's how a patient's rights are preserved in the case of an involuntary commitment in Conn: INVOLUNTARY CIVIL COMMITMENT AND PATIENTS' RIGHTS (State of Connecticut Laws)

The law permits the involuntary commitment of people with psychiatric disabilities who are either dangerous to themselves or others or gravely disabled.
“Dangerous to himself or herself or others” means there is a substantial risk that the individual will inflict physical harm upon his or her own person or upon another person.
An article from today's Hartford Courant:
Esty: Connecticut's Gun Seizure Law Should Be Model For The Country
Connecticut law allowing police to temporarily take guns from dangerous individuals is getting renewed attention amid the gun control debate brewing in Congress, with supporters saying it should be a model for the rest of the nation.

Rep. Elizabeth Esty was joined at a news conference in Washington Tuesday by Republican and Democratic colleagues to push the Gun Violence Restraining Order Act, one of a flurry of gun reform bills being considered in the wake of the mid-February mass shooting at a Florida high school.

Legislators passed Connecticut’s so-called “risk warrant” law in 1999. Under the law, police have to obtain a warrant from a judge before guns can be seized, and the owner of the firearms is entitled to a hearing within two weeks to decide whether or not the guns will be returned.

At the state Capitol earlier this month, Republican legislators, even staunch supporters of the Second Amendment, declared the law a success, with one of the bill’s original authors saying he would share the legislation with the leaders of other state legislatures.

“This piece of legislation was very carefully crafted to protect constitutional rights … and at the same time provide us with a way to deal with a problem that is a real threat,” state Rep. Arthur O’Neil, R-Southbury, said at a news conference. He said he only wished more people knew about the law.

Risk warrants are not widely used in Connecticut, with about 500 total issued in the last three years.

“It has not turned into some sort of wholesale confiscation program of firearms,” O’Neil said.
 
Last edited:
C

Cackalacky

Guest
Reading this seriously enraged me. GOP has been hell bent in the Teabagger era on destroying public schools. Yet as a smack to the face of these kids, they vote to make porn a public health crisis and now alot 67 mil to train and arm teachers. These fucking clowns do not deserve to be representing the people of Florida. Yes I feel very strongly about this.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">at one point in the school year, Douglas ran out of paper for more than a week. Teachers couldn’t print tests, worksheets or homework. But, they can throw down 67 million to arm teachers. <a href="https://t.co/ousBuHKs1r">https://t.co/ousBuHKs1r</a></p>— Kyra (@longlivekcx) <a href="https://twitter.com/longlivekcx/status/969005798423781378?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 1, 2018</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

IrishSteelhead

All Flair, No Substance
Messages
11,114
Reaction score
4,686
Another Shooting

I have heard every excuse under the sun for why public schools are being destroyed.

The GOP was literally mentioned once maybe.

Lots of reasons schools suck these days. Government (GOP or Dems) has a tiny hand in it at best. Using schools as a political talking point is an exercise in futility.

Ive taught through two different 8 year terms (one Red, one Blue). Nothing was different.

*This is reality. Where people value talk the same as action for some stupid reason
 
Last edited:

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
No. Connecticut led the way in what are called Red Flag laws.
That's not what Trump said. He LITERALLY said he wants to take guns without due process. Gun violence restraining orders are the one thing Connecticut gets right. It includes a warrant from a judge and a hearing within two weeks. That's due process. Trump was talking about law enforcement acting unilaterally.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
I have heard every excuse under the sun for why public schools are being destroyed.

The GOP was literally mentioned once maybe.

Lots of reasons schools suck these days. Government (GOP or Dems) has a tiny hand in it at best. Using schools as a political talking point is an exercise in futility.

Ive taught through two different 8 year terms (one Red, one Blue). Nothing was different.

*This is reality. Where people value talk the same as action for some stupid reason

It is literally a step by step dismantlement. There is a plan and it’s being executed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/08/07/north-carolinas-step-by-step-war-on-public-education/

https://networkforpubliceducation.org/2017/03/trumps-budget-slashes-funding-disadvantaged-students-giving-1-4-billion-privatization/

*This is reality.
 
Last edited:

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,707
Reaction score
6,014
Reading this seriously enraged me. GOP has been hell bent in the Teabagger era on destroying public schools. Yet as a smack to the face of these kids, they vote to make porn a public health crisis and now alot 67 mil to train and arm teachers. These fucking clowns do not deserve to be representing the people of Florida. Yes I feel very strongly about this.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">at one point in the school year, Douglas ran out of paper for more than a week. Teachers couldn’t print tests, worksheets or homework. But, they can throw down 67 million to arm teachers. <a href="https://t.co/ousBuHKs1r">https://t.co/ousBuHKs1r</a></p>— Kyra (@longlivekcx) <a href="https://twitter.com/longlivekcx/status/969005798423781378?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 1, 2018</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Oh the humanity! No paper!

That smells like something the school did to mess up.

These people were begged and pleaded, "do something!" They are trying to do something and they you whine about that too. Couldnt be more proud of my new home. When you do something to piss off Cack, you probably have a friend in me.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
That's not what Trump said. He LITERALLY said he wants to take guns without due process. Gun violence restraining orders are the one thing Connecticut gets right. It includes a warrant from a judge and a hearing within two weeks. That's due process. Trump was talking about law enforcement acting unilaterally.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">"Take the guns first. Go through due process second," President Trump says at a meeting with bipartisan lawmakers. "I like taking the guns early." <a href="https://t.co/lQkq3krCWs">https://t.co/lQkq3krCWs</a> <a href="https://t.co/0iPywBQ66b">pic.twitter.com/0iPywBQ66b</a></p>— CNN (@CNN) <a href="https://twitter.com/CNN/status/968953216053469184?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 28, 2018</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

What is he doing? He clearly has no understanding of the constitution. In fact I think he views all these checks and balances as a hindrance. Oy vey
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
By reason of mental disease or defect.

Now now.... the NRA says that anyone should be able to buy any gun. The 2nd Amendment is not limited to just guns either. How would these people protect themselves from tyranny? Are they ALL mentally crazy or defective? What is the basis for diagnosis? Isn’t this religious? Does that violate the religious rights? Which overides which? How do you know? Why is this any different from thefreedom fighters who hold up in Idaho cabins training for a war on the government? Didn’t you just spends the last two weeks defending gun rights for everyone?
 
Last edited:

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Now now.... the NRA says that anyone should be able to buy any gun.
No, no they don't. Therefore the rest of your post is invalid.

"I don't believe that this insane monster should have ever been able to obtain a firearm, ever. I do not think that he should have gotten his hands on any kind of weapon. That's number one.

This individual was nuts and I, nor the millions of people that I represent as a part of this organization, that I'm here speaking for, none of us support people who are crazy, who are a danger to themselves, who are a danger to others, getting their hands on a firearm.

And, we have been, for over 20 years, and I have been screaming about this, which is why I'm here, because I have kids and I'm not just fighting for my kids, I'm fighting for you, I'm fighting for you, I'm fighting for all of you."

Dana Loesch, national spokesman for the NRA at the Parkland town hall.
 
Last edited:

dshans

They call me The Dribbler
Messages
9,624
Reaction score
1,181
Bishop2b5;1990974There was a minor hit song called DOA ([url said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTmFrNjqOmo[/url]) sometime in the early 70's that featured sirens (it was about a guy in a bad accident dying in the ambulance on the way to the hospital).

Brief side note: on a trip from Orlando to Dallas for the 1971 Cotton Bowl I was one of five in a small Dodge (a Dart, maybe?) and we found that one person could stretch out in the trunk for a nap without being asphyxiated by the exhaust fumes.

I was in snoozing in the trunk at one point, and DOA started playing – there was a speaker mounted on the deck behind the back seat so the music was audible in the trunk. I pounded on the back seat and screamed "change the damn station!"

It was not a song I wanted to hear in that situation.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
No, no they don't. Therefore the rest of your post is invalid.

"I don't believe that this insane monster should have ever been able to obtain a firearm, ever. I do not think that he should have gotten his hands on any kind of weapon. That's number one.

This individual was nuts and I, nor the millions of people that I represent as a part of this organization, that I'm here speaking for, none of us support people who are crazy, who are a danger to themselves, who are a danger to others, getting their hands on a firearm.

And, we have been, for over 20 years, and I have been screaming about this, which is why I'm here, because I have kids and I'm not just fighting for my kids, I'm fighting for you, I'm fighting for you, I'm fighting for all of you."

Dana Loesch, national spokesman for the NRA at the Parkland town hall.
This is all a lie. They have promoted ending background checks, evaluating the mental fitness of people buying guns, ended studies into gun violence etc etc etc... lies lies lies. and you believe it. If you cant tell,I have shocked face while reading that you would quote Dana about all this...lol.

As for the rest of my previous post... I want to know:

How YOU determined these people are mentally unfit?

Are they exercising their religious rights? Which overrides which? 1st or 2nd or 5th for victims of gun violence and gun owners?

What is the basis of your determination they are mentally unfit to own weapons?

what is the difference in these people and those people in your post?
zQk5nRG.jpg


How will they be protected from tyranny?

After all your posts in this thread defending gun rights for ALL Americans, these deserve answers IMO.
 
Last edited:
C

Cackalacky

Guest
SO Delta ends some discounts with the NRA. Georgia GOP then takes away tax credits on fuel penalizing Delta specifically.... This is crazy

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Wow, this is so not going to end well for Georgia. Delta can easily, and should move to another state. But also shows just how in the pocket of the NRA Republicans lawmakers are, that they would risk losing these jobs. <a href="https://t.co/xzl3Pq2QIR">https://t.co/xzl3Pq2QIR</a></p>— Amy Siskind (@Amy_Siskind) <a href="https://twitter.com/Amy_Siskind/status/969187855724630017?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 1, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
This is all a lie. They have promoted ending background checks, evaluating the mental fitness of people buying guns, ended studies into gun violence etc etc etc... lies lies lies. and you believe it. If you cant tell,I have shocked face while reading that you would quote Dana about all this...lol.
You're so full of shit. She's their NATIONAL SPOKESMAN. If there's a single thing on which she has credibility, it's where the NRA stands on issues. The NRA has been the biggest advocate group for gun safety and training for decades.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,628
Reaction score
2,732
.
You make points on the difficulties of gun control legislation that, unless there are changes in our culture or consensus opinion, paint a dark picture for the future, especially considering our homicide rate per capita. Worth noting is that 98% of homicides are committed with handguns. A recent analysis of mass murderers show that 22% might be categorized as having some kind of mental disorder with the same criteria in the general population is 1%. So focusing strictly on mental disorders does nto address the problem and more of a canard by those who wish to preserve the status quo.

Registration, documentation of sales, background checks and restrictions on some types of weapons and/or ammunitions fall within the interstate commerce powers of the federal government. States can and do pass legislation that can restrict some commerce within the state and other regulations to protect their citizens from what they perceive as a public health problem.




Mental criteria based on admission type is easily established - involuntary admission by a probate court, voluntary admissions to psych hospitals, and, in some places, a physician's certification emergency certification that allows hospitalization for a period of time (15 days in one state) based on the criteria that people are deemed disabled or a danger to themselves or others.




There is no requirement that mental illness hospitalizations or those hospitalized as dangers to themselves or others be reported to the National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS) by states. Unfortunately for mandatory universal background checks, the interim provisions of the Brady were challenged and upheld by SCOTUS in Printz v. U.S. which gun rights advocate groups funded. Each state can choose to establish such a database and report these to NICS. Over 5,000 voluntary psych admissions have been entered into Connecticut's database and reported to NICS, New York entered over 34,000, Florida entered over 140,00, Wyoming has entered four.

Where do you get your stats? I mean - 69% isn't anything to brag about but embarrassingly far off of 98%. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

Then if we are being intellectually honest - we need to think about how many of those are by LEGAL gun owners. Quick searches have mixed results but I am seeing a lot of single digit answers to that question.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,628
Reaction score
2,732
I will say - our schools and legal system do a lot to lock up juvenile records and cover up bad decisions or even mental instability. Given that hurdle - a move to a minimum age of 21 to purchase weapons is somewhat validated. I hate the further enabling of kids to not grow up and seems ridiculous you can die for this country driving a tank but can' buy a personal firearm. However, without proactive evaluation of the mental health of children a three year waiting period to prove you can be a responsible enough member of society has merits.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
You're so full of shit. She's their NATIONAL SPOKESMAN. If there's a single thing on which she has credibility, it's where the NRA stands on issues. The NRA has been the biggest advocate group for gun safety and training for decades.

Whose full of shit now? ME or You for being so intellectually dishonest that you are purposefully not realizing that what she says versus their ACTUAL positions related to legislation THEY HAVE ACTIVELY AND FINANCIALLY LOBBIED FOR are at odds. She is a liar.

Her... Mentally unfit people should not have access to guns...

NRA also says they support that but lobby to restrict or end any way of maintaining those records or evaluate the effect of guns on society, especially here in America. They have undercut attempts to report or identify people who would be unfit. They have generated and promoted false scientific studies themselves.

Reality.... bought and paid legislators remove aspects of gun control over time (which had a high point in 1994) becasue they are paid to do so by the NRA, which is essentially a front for the Gun Manufacturers.

This isnt hard to understand except by the most genuinely obtuse person.
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,707
Reaction score
6,014
NRA membership has got to be skyrocketing right now. This stuff cracks me up. Liberal folks are literally begging for the NRA to get more powerful. AR 15 ownership is probably about to go through the roof too.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Whose full of shit now? ME or You for being so intellectually dishonest that you are purposefully not realizing that what she says versus their ACTUAL positions related to legislation THEY HAVE ACTIVELY AND FINANCIALLY LOBBIED FOR are at odds. She is a liar.

Her... Mentally unfit people should not have access to guns...

NRA also says they support that but lobby to restrict or end any way of maintaining those records or evaluate the effect of guns on society, especially here in America. They have undercut attempts to report or identify people who would be unfit. They have generated and promoted false scientific studies themselves.

Reality.... bought and paid legislators remove aspects of gun control over time (which had a high point in 1994) becasue they are paid to do so by the NRA, which is essentially a front for the Gun Manufacturers.

This isnt hard to understand except by the most genuinely obtuse person.
Wrong wrong, wrong, wrong-wrong wrongity wrong.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20130124/mental-health-and-firearms

That's the NRA Institute for Legal Action, i.e. their lobbying arm, in 2013.

See also, the NRA editorial from the September 1966 issue of American Rifleman magazine.

https://www.americanrifleman.org/ar...rifleman-archives-editorial-the-mentally-ill/
 
Last edited:

Bishop2b5

SEC Exchange Student
Messages
8,941
Reaction score
6,164
After watching Cack in this and the Trump Presidency thread, I don't think he should have a gun. Not until January 2025 at least.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
Wrong wrong, wrong, wrong-wrong wrongity wrong.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20130124/mental-health-and-firearms

That's the NRA Institute for Legal Action, i.e. their lobbying arm, in 2013.

See also, the NRA editorial from the September 1966 issue of American Rifleman magazine.

https://www.americanrifleman.org/ar...rifleman-archives-editorial-the-mentally-ill/

lololololololololololololololololoollllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooollllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
 
Top