Do you notice how gun nuts never talk about any limits to gun ownership?

[M14 Shooter]

The Federal Government is severely limited in what it can and can't do about gun rights and regulations. It's left up to the states with very few exceptions.

The states are as limited by the 2nd to the same degree as the federal government.

 

[Oddball]

 

[satrebil]

There's nothing to discuss. The Constitution (despite your misinterpretation) protect out Rights to own weapons. There is nothing you can do about it.

The Legislators, Courts and Voters disagree with you and there is nothing you can do about it.

Really? Then why do I own firearms? Many of them. Dumb ass.

Listening to you whine, and then deny you lost despite the fact that you’re whining specifically because you lost, is fascinating. You lost asshole. The American people have no desire to “update” the 2nd Amendment. Deal with it. Accept reality.

The State where you live in ALLOWS you to have those firearms. Simple as that. God didn't give you those magical rights. The State gave you those rights. And if too many people in your state misuse those guns, the State can take those rights away or severely regulate them. The State Giveth, the State Taketh away.

And the only thing you can do is to keep people like yourself from going off the deep end.

The Bill Of Rights is not a list of privileges granted by government, it's a list of rights that the government is forbidden to take away. You also can't vote away the Constitution, numbnuts. You are a Class A moron. Just stop talking.

The Bill of Rights is just a paper that the 1st 10 amendments of the Constitution was drawn from. The Constitution of the United States is what counts. All of it. And that includes the 10th and the 14th amendment that you so callously ignore. The Federal Government is severely limited in what it can and can't do about gun rights and regulations. It's left up to the states with very few exceptions. You don't like the regulations in the state you live in, it's the Federal Courts opinion that you can just move to one you prefer better.

And yet, federal courts have repeatedly struck down state laws that are deemed infringements to the 2nd Amendment. Funny how that works....

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Legislators, Courts and Voters disagree with you and there is nothing you can do about it.

Really? Then why do I own firearms? Many of them. Dumb ass.

Listening to you whine, and then deny you lost despite the fact that you’re whining specifically because you lost, is fascinating. You lost asshole. The American people have no desire to “update” the 2nd Amendment. Deal with it. Accept reality.

The State where you live in ALLOWS you to have those firearms. Simple as that. God didn't give you those magical rights. The State gave you those rights. And if too many people in your state misuse those guns, the State can take those rights away or severely regulate them. The State Giveth, the State Taketh away.

And the only thing you can do is to keep people like yourself from going off the deep end.

The Bill Of Rights is not a list of privileges granted by government, it's a list of rights that the government is forbidden to take away. You also can't vote away the Constitution, numbnuts. You are a Class A moron. Just stop talking.

The Bill of Rights is just a paper that the 1st 10 amendments of the Constitution was drawn from. The Constitution of the United States is what counts. All of it. And that includes the 10th and the 14th amendment that you so callously ignore. The Federal Government is severely limited in what it can and can't do about gun rights and regulations. It's left up to the states with very few exceptions. You don't like the regulations in the state you live in, it's the Federal Courts opinion that you can just move to one you prefer better.

And yet, federal courts have repeatedly struck down state laws that are deemed infringements to the 2nd Amendment. Funny how that works....

What they have struck down is the Due Process side of the gun laws, not the actual gun laws. For instance, it's every citizens right to have a fully serviceable handgun in the home. When the State refuses that then that is in violation of the second amendment. But when they place attainable requirements for registrations and licensing for the citizen to obtain it then that's legal; Heller V D.C. But that is where it stops. The State (any government lower than the Federal) has to use what is now known as the "Heller Rule" when dealing with Gun Regulations. You can call it normal or common sense (obviously it's going to be someone elses common sense) when dealing with these laws. Why is 10 round mag limits not legal but maybe 15 round limits are. What about accessory addons. You can't ban a generic definition of firearms when you can name a specific model and ban just that one (i.e. you can't ban the generic semi-auto assault rifle but you can ban the AR-15 AR-15 and it's various clones). Who or what gets to decide these items? The Courts since We have the right to question these in court and get the rulings. And we have. The courts have ruled or are in the process of ruling right now.

Right now, the Colorado Law limiting the Max of 15 rounds in a Mag is being heard by the Colorado State Federal Court. They have yet to announce their ruling. We already know that another Federal Court ruled that the 10 round did not meet the Heller Ruling and that court hinted that 15 or 20 might. This ruling is very important as it will answer the question if 15 meets the Heller test. I don't have a problem with the 15 round limit. AFter the initial shock, life in the Gun World around here went on just fine. The sun came up, the gun sales continued and all was good. But if they change it to 20, life will still continue, the sun will come up in the morning and life will still be good. But don't look for them to change it to 30 or unlimited. That is pressing it just too far and goes well outside the original idea that Heller V D.C. ruling was trying to establish.

You seem to remember only the laws that were struck down that you agree with. And you find that all the ones that you didn't agree with that the courts upheld as "Unconstitutional". Well, cupcake, unless you can get the laws overturned by a higher court (don't bank on the Supreme Court who is still avoiding the 2nd amendment cases like the black plague) then they ARE constitutional.

Think of this. The ONLY reason that your unhinged Neighbor down the street with an arsenal down the street equal to yours that thinks you are a blight on society hasn't laid in wait for you to check your mail just might be due to that it's unconstitutional for him to do that. I can bet he thinks it's also unconstitutional that he is prevented from doing that as well. Can this be a possibility? If you mouth is as big in real life as it is in here then it's more than likely. So be careful out there.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Really? Then why do I own firearms? Many of them. Dumb ass.

Listening to you whine, and then deny you lost despite the fact that you’re whining specifically because you lost, is fascinating. You lost asshole. The American people have no desire to “update” the 2nd Amendment. Deal with it. Accept reality.

The State where you live in ALLOWS you to have those firearms. Simple as that. God didn't give you those magical rights. The State gave you those rights. And if too many people in your state misuse those guns, the State can take those rights away or severely regulate them. The State Giveth, the State Taketh away.

And the only thing you can do is to keep people like yourself from going off the deep end.

The Bill Of Rights is not a list of privileges granted by government, it's a list of rights that the government is forbidden to take away. You also can't vote away the Constitution, numbnuts. You are a Class A moron. Just stop talking.

The Bill of Rights is just a paper that the 1st 10 amendments of the Constitution was drawn from. The Constitution of the United States is what counts. All of it. And that includes the 10th and the 14th amendment that you so callously ignore. The Federal Government is severely limited in what it can and can't do about gun rights and regulations. It's left up to the states with very few exceptions. You don't like the regulations in the state you live in, it's the Federal Courts opinion that you can just move to one you prefer better.

And yet, federal courts have repeatedly struck down state laws that are deemed infringements to the 2nd Amendment. Funny how that works....

What they have struck down is the Due Process side of the gun laws, not the actual gun laws. For instance, it's every citizens right to have a fully serviceable handgun in the home. When the State refuses that then that is in violation of the second amendment. But when they place attainable requirements for registrations and licensing for the citizen to obtain it then that's legal; Heller V D.C. But that is where it stops. The State (any government lower than the Federal) has to use what is now known as the "Heller Rule" when dealing with Gun Regulations. You can call it normal or common sense (obviously it's going to be someone elses common sense) when dealing with these laws. Why is 10 round mag limits not legal but maybe 15 round limits are. What about accessory addons. You can't ban a generic definition of firearms when you can name a specific model and ban just that one (i.e. you can't ban the generic semi-auto assault rifle but you can ban the AR-15 AR-15 and it's various clones). Who or what gets to decide these items? The Courts since We have the right to question these in court and get the rulings. And we have. The courts have ruled or are in the process of ruling right now.

Right now, the Colorado Law limiting the Max of 15 rounds in a Mag is being heard by the Colorado State Federal Court. They have yet to announce their ruling. We already know that another Federal Court ruled that the 10 round did not meet the Heller Ruling and that court hinted that 15 or 20 might. This ruling is very important as it will answer the question if 15 meets the Heller test. I don't have a problem with the 15 round limit. AFter the initial shock, life in the Gun World around here went on just fine. The sun came up, the gun sales continued and all was good. But if they change it to 20, life will still continue, the sun will come up in the morning and life will still be good. But don't look for them to change it to 30 or unlimited. That is pressing it just too far and goes well outside the original idea that Heller V D.C. ruling was trying to establish.

You seem to remember only the laws that were struck down that you agree with. And you find that all the ones that you didn't agree with that the courts upheld as "Unconstitutional". Well, cupcake, unless you can get the laws overturned by a higher court (don't bank on the Supreme Court who is still avoiding the 2nd amendment cases like the black plague) then they ARE constitutional.

Think of this. The ONLY reason that your unhinged Neighbor down the street with an arsenal down the street equal to yours that thinks you are a blight on society hasn't laid in wait for you to check your mail just might be due to that it's unconstitutional for him to do that. I can bet he thinks it's also unconstitutional that he is prevented from doing that as well. Can this be a possibility? If you mouth is as big in real life as it is in here then it's more than likely. So be careful out there.

30 is the capacity in common use now. Banning 30 would not be in line with Heller.

You have an argument for anything north of 30.

.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The State where you live in ALLOWS you to have those firearms. Simple as that. God didn't give you those magical rights. The State gave you those rights. And if too many people in your state misuse those guns, the State can take those rights away or severely regulate them. The State Giveth, the State Taketh away.

And the only thing you can do is to keep people like yourself from going off the deep end.

The Bill Of Rights is not a list of privileges granted by government, it's a list of rights that the government is forbidden to take away. You also can't vote away the Constitution, numbnuts. You are a Class A moron. Just stop talking.

The Bill of Rights is just a paper that the 1st 10 amendments of the Constitution was drawn from. The Constitution of the United States is what counts. All of it. And that includes the 10th and the 14th amendment that you so callously ignore. The Federal Government is severely limited in what it can and can't do about gun rights and regulations. It's left up to the states with very few exceptions. You don't like the regulations in the state you live in, it's the Federal Courts opinion that you can just move to one you prefer better.

And yet, federal courts have repeatedly struck down state laws that are deemed infringements to the 2nd Amendment. Funny how that works....

What they have struck down is the Due Process side of the gun laws, not the actual gun laws. For instance, it's every citizens right to have a fully serviceable handgun in the home. When the State refuses that then that is in violation of the second amendment. But when they place attainable requirements for registrations and licensing for the citizen to obtain it then that's legal; Heller V D.C. But that is where it stops. The State (any government lower than the Federal) has to use what is now known as the "Heller Rule" when dealing with Gun Regulations. You can call it normal or common sense (obviously it's going to be someone elses common sense) when dealing with these laws. Why is 10 round mag limits not legal but maybe 15 round limits are. What about accessory addons. You can't ban a generic definition of firearms when you can name a specific model and ban just that one (i.e. you can't ban the generic semi-auto assault rifle but you can ban the AR-15 AR-15 and it's various clones). Who or what gets to decide these items? The Courts since We have the right to question these in court and get the rulings. And we have. The courts have ruled or are in the process of ruling right now.

Right now, the Colorado Law limiting the Max of 15 rounds in a Mag is being heard by the Colorado State Federal Court. They have yet to announce their ruling. We already know that another Federal Court ruled that the 10 round did not meet the Heller Ruling and that court hinted that 15 or 20 might. This ruling is very important as it will answer the question if 15 meets the Heller test. I don't have a problem with the 15 round limit. AFter the initial shock, life in the Gun World around here went on just fine. The sun came up, the gun sales continued and all was good. But if they change it to 20, life will still continue, the sun will come up in the morning and life will still be good. But don't look for them to change it to 30 or unlimited. That is pressing it just too far and goes well outside the original idea that Heller V D.C. ruling was trying to establish.

You seem to remember only the laws that were struck down that you agree with. And you find that all the ones that you didn't agree with that the courts upheld as "Unconstitutional". Well, cupcake, unless you can get the laws overturned by a higher court (don't bank on the Supreme Court who is still avoiding the 2nd amendment cases like the black plague) then they ARE constitutional.

Think of this. The ONLY reason that your unhinged Neighbor down the street with an arsenal down the street equal to yours that thinks you are a blight on society hasn't laid in wait for you to check your mail just might be due to that it's unconstitutional for him to do that. I can bet he thinks it's also unconstitutional that he is prevented from doing that as well. Can this be a possibility? If you mouth is as big in real life as it is in here then it's more than likely. So be careful out there.

30 is the capacity in common use now. Banning 30 would not be in line with Heller.

You have an argument for anything north of 30.

.

No, in Colorado, the capacity is 15. It's been that way since 2013. That's in question right now. ALL ARs sold are sold with 15 round mags and have been since 2013. It did cause quite a stir at first. The Gun shops had no 15 round mags. What they had was 10, 20 and 30 round mags. They had to remove the 20 and 30 round mags and install the 10 round mags. That makes an AR look rediculous. . Hardly anyone bought an AR that looked that funny. It took them a month or so to get the 15 round mags in. The good news out of it was, it broke the cult following of the AR-15 and the cult never returned. Getting the 15 round Mags installed made it look, once again, like it should but the damage was done.

Easy answer on the 30 or more. We have had a total of 3 Mass Shootings in this state alone. It took the Nevada Shooting to take the body count record away from our home grown lunatic shooter. In all 3 shootings, the AR-15 with at least 30 round mags were used. Of course, the old record holder went to a 100 round mag that luckily jammed at about 50 rounds. Last year, we had another attempt at another Middle School by a 17 year old. What was he packing under that rain coat? His Daddy's AR-15 with 4 30 round Mags. Due to changes made in the school and the community surrounding the school he never made it to the front gate where he was headed before he was surrounded and overwhelmed by the cops. The reason he gave? He was going for the new record. Well, he certainly had the right tool and enough ammo to get the job done. But he probably lacked the skill set. The most lives he could have taken would have been the front gate guard and his own. The School was already in lockdown.

The point here is, there has to be a limit set. Common sense prevails. You really want to see people wandering the streets with a M249S belt fed semi-auto claiming they only use it to varmint hunt? How about stumbling down the street with a Barret 50 cal calling it a squirrel rifle? I don't know anyone that makes one, but how about mounting a semi-auto 20mm gun on the back of your SUV and rolling around town. Where do we draw the line? Just because something is made doesn't make it a good idea.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What they have struck down is the Due Process side of the gun laws, not the actual gun laws.

Nowhere does the ruling in Heller mention due process.
It DOES, however, state that:

Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute [the handgun ban] —would fail constitutional muster.

Similarly, (that is, under any standard of scrutiny) the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

For instance, it's every citizens right to have a fully serviceable handgun in the home. When the State refuses that then that is in violation of the second amendment. But when they place attainable requirements for registrations and licensing for the citizen to obtain it then that's legal; Heller V D.C.

This is a lie; you are fully aware of the fact Heller holds no such thing.

The State (any government lower than the Federal) has to use what is now known as the "Heller Rule"....

This is a lie; you are fully aware of the fact no such rule, as you describe it, was established by anything ruled upon in Heller.

We already know that another Federal Court ruled that the 10 round did not meet the Heller Ruling....

You are fully aware of the fact no such rule, as you describe it, was established by anything ruled upon in Heller.

Tell us, Stolen Valor - why do you need to lie to make a point?

 

[M14 Shooter]

.
The point here is, there has to be a limit set. Common sense prevails.

You cannot demonstrate the necessity of any such limit, and you cannot demonstrate that any such limit will have an effect on, well, anything.
Absent those demonstrations, you have nothing but an unnecessary and ineffectual restriction on the right to keep and bear arms.

Your opinion, Stolen Valor, is unsupportable nonsense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The State where you live in ALLOWS you to have those firearms. Simple as that. God didn't give you those magical rights. The State gave you those rights.

Can you cite the text from his state - or ANY state - constitution or revised code that grants him the right to a firearm, as you claim?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

What they have struck down is the Due Process side of the gun laws, not the actual gun laws.

Nowhere does the ruling in Heller mention due process.
It DOES, however, state that:

Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute [the handgun ban] —would fail constitutional muster.

Similarly, (that is, under any standard of scrutiny) the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

For instance, it's every citizens right to have a fully serviceable handgun in the home. When the State refuses that then that is in violation of the second amendment. But when they place attainable requirements for registrations and licensing for the citizen to obtain it then that's legal; Heller V D.C.

This is a lie; you are fully aware of the fact Heller holds no such thing.

The State (any government lower than the Federal) has to use what is now known as the "Heller Rule"....

This is a lie; you are fully aware of the fact no such rule, as you describe it, was established by anything ruled upon in Heller.

We already know that another Federal Court ruled that the 10 round did not meet the Heller Ruling....

You are fully aware of the fact no such rule, as you describe it, was established by anything ruled upon in Heller.

Tell us, Stolen Valor - why do you need to lie to make a point?

Say goodbye idjit. You have nothing worth saying that anyone should care to hear.

 

[P@triot]

Care to esplain, there Lucy, what happened in the House and the fact that Trump has a 41.3 percent approval rating that hasn't changed in months including AFTER the Mueller report?

Certainly! Always happy to explain basics to the ignorant.

See, the party that holds the White House almost always suffers horrible loses at the first midterm. For instance, MaObama lost a mind-boggling 69 seats. He called it a “shellacking”. By contrast, President Trump expanded the Republican control of the Senate (extremely rare) and lost a laughable and paltry 21 seats (MaObama lost more than 3x’s as many).

You’re literally too ignorant of history to understand how much of a disaster this midterm was for you.

 

[P@triot]

Or the fact that some Republican Senators are starting to revolt against the status quo.

Um...hey genius....? President Trump is leading the revolt! Who is less “status quo” than Donald Trump?

 

[P@triot]

And if you haven't noticed (it's a bit hard with all the noise) that most of the incoming House Dems, most of them were moderates as well.

Because Dumbocrats are starting to realize that being a Dumbocrat is a losing proposition. You can thank President Trump for that.

 

[P@triot]

2020 is probably not going to go the way you believe it will.

Yeah...that’s what you said about the 2016 election.

For instance, we already know that Republican Senate Seat from Colorado is going to flip.

Yeah...but you also “knew” that Hitlery Clinton would be the 45th president

So get ready for a wild ride. Not one you are going to care for.

Yeah...that’s what you said about the 2016 election.

 

[P@triot]

The State where you live in ALLOWS you to have those firearms. Simple as that.

Uh...no they didn’t. Stupid. The U.S. Constitution makes it abundantly clear that the state cannot trample my constitutional rights.

God didn't give you those magical rights.

Really sparky?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.——That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”

Do you ever get tired of looking like a moron?

(Psst...the state is not my “creator”)

The State gave you those rights. And if too many people in your state misuse those guns, the State can take those rights away or severely regulate them. The State Giveth, the State Taketh away.

Really sparky?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.——That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”

How do you not get tired of looking like a dumb ass???

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Or the fact that some Republican Senators are starting to revolt against the status quo.

Um...hey genius....? President Trump is leading the revolt! Who is less “status quo” than Donald Trump?

Do you mean he's leading the revolt to chop off his own head?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The State where you live in ALLOWS you to have those firearms. Simple as that.

Uh...no they didn’t. Stupid. The U.S. Constitution makes it abundantly clear that the state cannot trample my constitutional rights.

God didn't give you those magical rights.

Really sparky?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.——That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”

Do you ever get tired of looking like a moron?

(Psst...the state is not my “creator”)

The State gave you those rights. And if too many people in your state misuse those guns, the State can take those rights away or severely regulate them. The State Giveth, the State Taketh away.

Really sparky?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.——That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”

How do you not get tired of looking like a dumb ass???

YOu had better never leave you hovel or your cave. At least then the way you think the world is will stay the way you think it is. But take one step outside into the light of the day and it's a whole new world. The one the rest of us live in. Well, cupcake, you just stay where you are. I didn't know they had internet that far into the woods. Who knew.

 

[P@triot]

The Federal Government is severely limited in what it can and can't do about gun rights and regulations. It's left up to the states with very few exceptions.

Bwahahaha! Good grief are you one clueless little monkey. The Supremacy Clause makes it abundantly clear that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It trumps and and all other law. A state cannot strip, limit, or alter rights. Period. Moron.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Federal Government is severely limited in what it can and can't do about gun rights and regulations. It's left up to the states with very few exceptions.

Bwahahaha! Good grief are you one clueless little monkey. The Supremacy Clause makes it abundantly clear that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It trumps and and all other law. A state cannot strip, limit, or alter rights. Period. Moron.

Until the 2nd amendment is made clear then it can be interpreted a lot of different ways. The first 2/3rds of it already has no meaning and should be completely deleted. You are fighting about the last 1/3 that still has meaning. But it's too vague. If you want it to mean what you think it means, get it amended to say what you claim it does. Otherwise, since it doesn't, the States have the right to do firearms regulations as their citizens see fit. And that is in the constitution under the 10th amendment ratified to the Constitution in 1791.

You have the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.. Fine, it doesn't say what arms, where you can bear them or anything else. Just that you have the right to bear arms. The original intent was to support the 2/3rds that came before it in the 2nd amendment that no longer has any meaning. What's happened is, the courts have done a defacto rewriting of the last part of the 2nd amendment because Congress hasn't done their jobs and amended it to stay current. If you want the 2nd to read like the way you think it should, you need to get Congress to ratify a new amendment to the 2nd so it reads like you think it should. Otherwise, the Courts will do some interpretation of it and the States will pass laws under the 10th amendment. Again, you say you are a Patriot and a Constitutionalist. If you are, you need to follow the whole Constitution and not just the part you agree with. If you don't agree with part of it, work to get it ratified "Legally" and "Constitutionally" to fit your ideals.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What they have struck down is the Due Process side of the gun laws, not the actual gun laws.

Nowhere does the ruling in Heller mention due process.
It DOES, however, state that:

Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute [the handgun ban] —would fail constitutional muster.

Similarly, (that is, under any standard of scrutiny) the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

For instance, it's every citizens right to have a fully serviceable handgun in the home. When the State refuses that then that is in violation of the second amendment. But when they place attainable requirements for registrations and licensing for the citizen to obtain it then that's legal; Heller V D.C.

This is a lie; you are fully aware of the fact Heller holds no such thing.

The State (any government lower than the Federal) has to use what is now known as the "Heller Rule"....

This is a lie; you are fully aware of the fact no such rule, as you describe it, was established by anything ruled upon in Heller.

We already know that another Federal Court ruled that the 10 round did not meet the Heller Ruling....

You are fully aware of the fact no such rule, as you describe it, was established by anything ruled upon in Heller.

Tell us, Stolen Valor - why do you need to lie to make a point?

Say goodbye idjit. You have nothing worth saying that anyone should care to hear.

Awww. is Stolen Valor Boy upset?
Perhaps you should try not lying.

If ever you believe you can have an honest discussion in the issue, let us know.