The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

Quote:

---

Some of the states (i.e., Pennsylvania and Vermont) explicitly mentions the right to bear arms for self defense too.

---

That's an interpretative stretch without having the text in front of you. Perhaps they meant defense against indians, wildcats and bears. Perhaps defense against their own government never even crossed their minds. Once upon a time the violent tragedies of the day were maulings and Indian massacres. Now they are elementary school kids mowed down by semi-automatic gun fire. Once again, it doesn't matter what the founders were thinking. What matters is what they wrote into the text of the law, whether it is still law and if it is, how the courts interpret it now.

Sorry 300 !!!!! I just checked and in 2011 nearly 32,000 people died in gun related incidents in the US (crime, suicides and accidents)

And I'd also add that if a rule (even one written by your sacred founding fathers) is now foolish and unfitting for the times, then why should it not be changed? They were not written by god.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave32111

I didn't. You are not rebutting any argument I've made. Don't stick me in with "you guys" ...

---

Good, so why do you need the second amendment to cover semi-automatic weapons, large magazines etc. etc.? Are you saying there is no need for the 2nd Amendment? The only reason to keep it is tradition?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

Sorry 300 !!!!! I just checked and in 2011 nearly 32,000 people died in gun related incidents in the US (crime, suicides and accidents)

---

Thank you, Prospero.

The gun supporting people here have still not answered the question about why they WANT to own these weapons.

My point would be that it's a right guaranteed by the constitution - you need to do more than ask why I need one to just be able to ban it.

And please - let's talk about homicides, use FBI statistics. Try this one:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...e-data-table-8

323 homicides by rifles in 2011. "Assault Rifles" (whatever that term means to you) are a subset of that category. Violent crime is still decreasing every year, but you want to ban a tiny portion of guns? Why?

And finally, because you asked so nicely, I don't need to want one, I own one. I target shoot with it - because it's fun. Why do you go fishing? Because you enjoy it. When I'm not shooting it, it stays in a safe, where no one has access to it.

Quote:

---

My point would be that it's a right guaranteed by the constitution - you need to do more than ask why I need one to just be able to ban it.

---

So you can't think of a reason not to ban it other than it's a currently guaranteed by the Constitution.

Why restrict the discussion to homicides? Or even deaths? Or rifles? How about gun related accidents, both fatal and non-fatal? How about rifle related accidents, fatal or non-fatal? How about those involving children? Life is tough. No need to add guns to the mix.

Unfortunately, the 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere. But we should have enough public support to get rid of high capacity mags and assault rifles.

There's roughly 300+ million guns in the U.S. owned by private citizens, how do we put that toothpaste back in the tube??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

Unfortunately, the 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere. But we should have enough public support to get rid of high capacity mags and assault rifles.

There's roughly 300+ million guns in the U.S. owned by private citizens, how do we put that toothpaste back in the tube??

---

Unfortunate, but true. It's a good reason not to break out new tubes and start squeezing them, which is exactly the solution proposed by the gun manufacturers (though their NRA lobbyist, Lapierre).

Besides the ban on high capacity mags and assault rifles I would like to see law that make gun owners and manufacturers libel for injuries caused by their weapons (stolen or not). Currently manufacturers and owners are protected from libel suits! A firearm can blowup in your hand and you cannot sue the manufacturer. A kid can steal a gun from an owner and kill someone, but the owner (as I understand the law) need not worry about liability.

Just as every driver needs to carry auto-insurance, every gun owner should be required to carry insurance on each of his guns to cover any injuries it might cause.

It might be helpful to think of the USA as 50 different countries, each with its own government and laws. The original intention of the Revolutionary Congress, as I understand it, was that the Federal government would be of minimal importance across the States, and the reluctance by Washington and the first Congress to establish a standing army was not based on defence or security but driven by reluctance to create the taxes that would need to be levied to pay for it; defence issues were a matter for local communities, and because they had already created their own militias, this seemed to be the best form of defence. I don't believe that Congress ever intended individuals to have rights to arms that were greater than the rights of their communities, which is why the 2nd Amendment refers to militias and not individuals; the Heller judgement in my opinion is a perverse reading of the intentions of the framers of the 2nd Amendment, but offers a contemporary interpretation of it that is also perverse, because the nature of the USA as a federal entity has changed radically in the last 200 years, so that the original assumptions of 18th century politics, as well as the technical level of the arms that were available then compared to now, creates this confusion about then and now.

The right to bear arms is linguistically allied to warfare at any level, be it local, regional, national or international, it does not, for example, refer to a right a farmer might have to own a gun to kill foxes. To 'bear arms' is a military term; pioneers who headed out west or who made a living trapping in the wilds will have had weapons such as guns and knives as part of their work, as well as for personal security. They did not 'bear arms'; they just owned them.

Logically, the 2nd amendment should be changed, as it is now too vague and can be interpreted to mean more than one thing, but that is the one measure that I doubt will happen. Individual states will make it harder to own certain types of weapon, it has been done before, so it is not that controversial. But the right to own weapons as a political right in order to deter the growth of tyrranical government does seem to me to resonate with American history, but must apply to state governments as well as the Federal government; but it does open the door for political extremists who may claim any form of government is a form of tyranny and thereby seek to take arms to end it. At some point, democracy at state level ought to deal with these issues, as I do not believe that most Americans hate their government, be it the Federal one, or the state government.

...and we go 'round and 'round again - this is why I don't try to get caught up in these discussions - people respond to what they already think. No one's going to change their mind here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave32111

...No one's going to change their mind here.

---

Speak for yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

It might be helpful to think of the USA as 50 different countries, each with its own government and laws. The original intention of the Revolutionary Congress, as I understand it, was that the Federal government would be of minimal importance across the States, and the reluctance by Washington and the first Congress to establish a standing army was not based on defence or security but driven by reluctance to create the taxes that would need to be levied to pay for it; defence issues were a matter for local communities, and because they had already created their own militias, this seemed to be the best form of defence. I don't believe that Congress ever intended individuals to have rights to arms that were greater than the rights of their communities, which is why the 2nd Amendment refers to militias and not individuals; the Heller judgement in my opinion is a perverse reading of the intentions of the framers of the 2nd Amendment, but offers a contemporary interpretation of it that is also perverse, because the nature of the USA as a federal entity has changed radically in the last 200 years, so that the original assumptions of 18th century politics, as well as the technical level of the arms that were available then compared to now, creates this confusion about then and now.

The right to bear arms is linguistically allied to warfare at any level, be it local, regional, national or international, it does not, for example, refer to a right a farmer might have to own a gun to kill foxes. To 'bear arms' is a military term; pioneers who headed out west or who made a living trapping in the wilds will have had weapons such as guns and knives as part of their work, as well as for personal security. They did not 'bear arms'; they just owned them.

Logically, the 2nd amendment should be changed, as it is now too vague and can be interpreted to mean more than one thing, but that is the one measure that I doubt will happen. Individual states will make it harder to own certain types of weapon, it has been done before, so it is not that controversial. But the right to own weapons as a political right in order to deter the growth of tyrranical government does seem to me to resonate with American history, but must apply to state governments as well as the Federal government; but it does open the door for political extremists who may claim any form of government is a form of tyranny and thereby seek to take arms to end it. At some point, democracy at state level ought to deal with these issues, as I do not believe that most Americans hate their government, be it the Federal one, or the state government.

---

Nicely done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

It might be helpful to think of the USA as 50 different countries, each with its own government and laws. The original intention of the Revolutionary Congress, as I understand it, was that the Federal government would be of minimal importance across the States, and the reluctance by Washington and the first Congress to establish a standing army was not based on defence or security but driven by reluctance to create the taxes that would need to be levied to pay for it; defence issues were a matter for local communities, and because they had already created their own militias, this seemed to be the best form of defence. I don't believe that Congress ever intended individuals to have rights to arms that were greater than the rights of their communities, which is why the 2nd Amendment refers to militias and not individuals; the Heller judgement in my opinion is a perverse reading of the intentions of the framers of the 2nd Amendment, but offers a contemporary interpretation of it that is also perverse, because the nature of the USA as a federal entity has changed radically in the last 200 years, so that the original assumptions of 18th century politics, as well as the technical level of the arms that were available then compared to now, creates this confusion about then and now.

The right to bear arms is linguistically allied to warfare at any level, be it local, regional, national or international, it does not, for example, refer to a right a farmer might have to own a gun to kill foxes. To 'bear arms' is a military term; pioneers who headed out west or who made a living trapping in the wilds will have had weapons such as guns and knives as part of their work, as well as for personal security. They did not 'bear arms'; they just owned them.

Logically, the 2nd amendment should be changed, as it is now too vague and can be interpreted to mean more than one thing, but that is the one measure that I doubt will happen. Individual states will make it harder to own certain types of weapon, it has been done before, so it is not that controversial. But the right to own weapons as a political right in order to deter the growth of tyrranical government does seem to me to resonate with American history, but must apply to state governments as well as the Federal government; but it does open the door for political extremists who may claim any form of government is a form of tyranny and thereby seek to take arms to end it. At some point, democracy at state level ought to deal with these issues, as I do not believe that most Americans hate their government, be it the Federal one, or the state government.

---

Shays Rebellion happened during the era of the Articles of Confederation. It was successfully put down by the militia. The First American Regiment (the small standing "army" at the time) didn't participate because it was assigned to the Western Frontier. The rebellion showed the weakness of the Articles of Confederation. The Army didn't expand until after the Battle of the Wabash in 1791. It was an embarrassing defeat against the Indian tribes. The battle led to the creation of the Legion of the United States and passage of the Militia Acts of 1792. After a few years, the Legion of the United States was reorganized into four regiments. The US had its first official standing army but it was small. The Government relied on the militia for 100+ years and it still does to a certain extent.

Bear arms isn't an exclusive military term. The following is from the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776:

Quote:

---

XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

---

Notice the right to bear arms for self defense?

How about the Connecticut Constitution of 1818:

Quote:

---

Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

---

Notice again the right to bear arms for defense of oneself and the state?

By the way, under Federal law, healthy men between the ages of 17 and 45 are apart of the unorganized militia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

And what - leaving your much vaunted constitutional "rights' aside - is so important about owning semi automatic weapons. Not hand guns. Not shotguns. But the sort used by nujobs and fanatcis to carry out slaughters like Sandy Hook. What do you gun owners NEED them for exactly? I'd love a rational argument on this that isn't circular about rights.

Do you really think the US Government is like Syria and about to turn its military firepower on the populace?

---

Do you actually know what a semi-automatic weapon is? Have you ever used one? Most handguns now are also semi-automatic. Just an FYI there.

Another school shooting today.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...-shooting.html

Luckily no one killed.

Another reason to tighten firearm regulation. Still no reason given for the status quo other than "some two hundred year old men living under entirely different circumstances with entirely different weapons technology gave me the right to carry firearms they never heard of."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Another school shooting today.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...-shooting.html

Luckily no one killed.

Another reason to tighten firearm regulation. Still no reason given for the status quo other than "some two hundred year old men living under entirely different circumstances with entirely different weapons technology gave me the right to carry firearms they never heard of."

---

Tighten how? He was armed with a shotgun.

P.S.,

The Brady Campaign ranked California as number one with the strongest gun laws in the country. Those old men probably would know what a shotgun could do because there were buck and ball load for their muskets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by notdrunk

Tighten how? He was armed with a shotgun.

P.S.,

The Brady Campaign ranked California as number one with the strongest gun laws in the country. Those old men probably would know what a shotgun could do because there were buck and ball load for their muskets.

---

Which begs the question - WTF was he doing in a school carrying a loaded shotgun in the first place?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robertlouis

Which begs the question - WTF was he doing in a school carrying a loaded shotgun in the first place?

---

Looks like he wanted to kill somebody. He probably stole it from a family member similar to what happened at the Red Lake reservation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by notdrunk

Looks like he wanted to kill somebody. He probably stole it from a family member similar to what happened at the Red Lake reservation.

---

My point exactly. In a society without such casual access to firearms, the chances of it happening are hugely reduced. It simply doesn't happen here in the UK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

Wowww......Alex Jones is seriously scarey - and I suspect he has his followers here. He broadcasts to millions, god help us. Little children die, but these nutjobs insist they've the right to own military style guns Jones is unhinged and his bellicosity is truly frightening.

I have just spent nearly a month in the US and it terrifying to see the level of violent hatred and ignorance levelled by the gun lobby against anyone who dares to suggest that there be any further restrictions on guns.

AI remained convinced, as i was on the day of the Sandy Hook slaughter that there will be no successful move to limit this madness. The NRA is too powerful - and the new Congress will blockl all and any attempts to dent this growing madness.

The next big shooting - thirty, forty, fifty deaths?. No chance of change following that either.

The second amendment calls for the right of a "well regulated militia" to have guns - not every ordinary man and woman on the street.

---

Alex Jones proudly proclaims that he has a personal arsenal of more then 50 guns, including assault and semi-automatic weapons. There's the argument for gun control right there. He's visibly unhinged, yet Texas (and it would have to be good ol' Tejas), is quite happy to allow him to amass enough weaponry to start his own war.

For fucks sake America.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robertlouis

My point exactly. In a society without such casual access to firearms, the chances of it happening are hugely reduced. It simply doesn't happen here in the UK.

---

Do you remember the Cumbria shootings in 2010? So, it does happen in your country. The history and demographics between our countries are different; therefore, it foolish to compare the two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by notdrunk

Do you remember the Cumbria shootings in 2010? So, it does happen in your country. The history and demographics between our countries are different; therefore, it foolish to compare the two.

---

Of course I do. My point is that since the Dunblane horror in 1996 when firearm controls were tightened up there has been no repetition of shootings on school premises.

And I also accept that the differences between our countries in regard to gun ownership are huge. However, please take on board that the last time there was a school shooting here, the government responded, with public support, by removing handgun possession from homes and permitting their use only on licensed gun club premises where all weapons are locked in secure safes when not in use.

When there is a multiple shooting here, we do something constructive to make sure it doesn't happen again. You guys do fuck all and then seem surprised when it happens again, and again, and again, and again.....

No further comment required.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robertlouis

Of course I do. My point is that since the Dunblane horror in 1996 when firearm controls were tightened up there has been no repetition of shootings on school premises.

And I also accept that the differences between our countries in regard to gun ownership are huge. However, please take on board that the last time there was a school shooting here, the government responded, with public support, by removing handgun possession from homes and permitting their use only on licensed gun club premises where all weapons are locked in secure safes when not in use.

When there is a multiple shooting here, we do something constructive to make sure it doesn't happen again. You guys do fuck all and then seem surprised when it happens again, and again, and again, and again.....

---

The problem with your country's constructive reactions is that it would be considered illegal under our Constitution. Furthermore, the reaction to banning private ownership wouldn't be pleasant. Additionally, it would be impracticable because there are 100s of millions of firearms in the US. Good luck in finding all those guns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by notdrunk

The problem with your country's constructive reactions is that it would be considered illegal under our Constitution. Furthermore, the reaction to banning private ownership wouldn't be pleasant. Additionally, it would be impracticable because there are 100s of millions of firearms in the US. Good luck in finding all those guns.

---

I agree with every point you make. However, the choice in the USA in terms of taking the smallest practical step to place a degree of control on firearms ownership or use lies between strident and hysterical defence of the status quo by the gun lobby and helpless fatalistic handwringing on the other.

The result is that nothing changes, which means that the gun lobby wins every time. And the killings continue.

As I said before, for fucks sake America.

And still no one can provide a reason not to tighten firearm regulation other than "some two hundred year old men living under entirely different circumstances with entirely different weapons technology gave me the right to carry firearms they never heard of."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

And still no one can provide a reason not to tighten firearm regulation other than "some two hundred year old men living under entirely different circumstances with entirely different weapons technology gave me the right to carry firearms they never heard of."

---

Quite. Where's Jonathan Swift when you need him?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by notdrunk

The problem with your country's constructive reactions is that it would be considered illegal under our Constitution. Furthermore, the reaction to banning private ownership wouldn't be pleasant. Additionally, it would be impracticable because there are 100s of millions of firearms in the US. Good luck in finding all those guns.

---

The Constitution is a barricade standing in the way of a sensible policy on gun control without doubt. And certainly the reaction from certain segments of the public would be hostile. But if it could be done the result would be fewer needless deaths and a very minor curtailment of liberty.

Very sad that these weapons are so important to some people. I've often wondered what must be missing in someone's life that they witness a tragic event and immediately fear that their lethal toys will be confiscated. There's a whole world out there. Get a hobby. Play golf. Play baseball. Play tennis. Build RC cars.

Why do we have to live in a country where people feel pressure to carry a gun because someone else might have one. Where we worry about open carry versus concealed carry. Where you and your buddies compliment each other on your "sidearms"; like "hey that's a nice sidearm. Next time someone cuts you off you should show it to them." It's freaking pathetic. Take your cool sidearms and shove em. Such pseudo-masculinity is a mental disease. Overgrown fucking children.

I'm still shocked by how entrenched the gun fetish society is in the U.S.
There are people in this country who own multiple firearms they NEVER SHOOT. I feel as if there's a symbolism in owning a gun that I'm missing. Is owning a gun that empowering? The knowledge the owner has that he could end the life of another human being in seconds??

Freedom = right of self defense = my kill rate potential.

Confiscating guns in this country would never work because there are too many brainwashed gunowners who would literally be willing to die in a firefight with police than turn in their .38.

The brilliance of the NRA is they've paired their interests with political conservatism, which means half of this nation's political party structure has protectively walled around them until gun ownership in the minds of many has become an unalienable human right.

If another Democrat wins the WH in 2016, I think the wacko right will eat themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYBURBS

Do you actually know what a semi-automatic weapon is? Have you ever used one? Most handguns now are also semi-automatic. Just an FYI there.

---

So many of the pro-gun lobby try to distract from the core issue with this kind of nit picking question. Just because you know the detailed specifications of this or that weapon is really rather irrelevent. The core issue is the obsessive concentration on the right to own these weapons, guns generally, despite the ongoing death count from their use by lunatics. Guns may not kill people, but they make it much,much easier for those who want to carry out massacres to make it happen.

Change the law and, if necessary, change your constitution. As i have said before it is NOT written in stone, You are a large and powerful nation with some of the most talented and creative and innovative minds in the world but you seem to lack the power to control the idiotic impulse to own weapons of death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by notdrunk

Shays Rebellion happened during the era of the Articles of Confederation. It was successfully put down by the militia. The First American Regiment (the small standing "army" at the time) didn't participate because it was assigned to the Western Frontier. The rebellion showed the weakness of the Articles of Confederation. The Army didn't expand until after the Battle of the Wabash in 1791. It was an embarrassing defeat against the Indian tribes. The battle led to the creation of the Legion of the United States and passage of the Militia Acts of 1792. After a few years, the Legion of the United States was reorganized into four regiments. The US had its first official standing army but it was small. The Government relied on the militia for 100+ years and it still does to a certain extent.

Bear arms isn't an exclusive military term. The following is from the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776:

Notice the right to bear arms for self defense?

How about the Connecticut Constitution of 1818:

Notice again the right to bear arms for defense of oneself and the state?

By the way, under Federal law, healthy men between the ages of 17 and 45 are apart of the unorganized militia.

---

Thank you for pointing it out, if anything it underlines the violence inherent in American history, in which it is not unique; I would also assume it is uncontoversial to argue that the states of the Union are now so different from the days when a British invasion was a real threat, that the justification for bearing arms is weaker than it was. What remains is the general principle to bear arms, and the nature of modern armaments, I think a justification for both has been weakened by time, but it is for Americans to decide what place weapons have in society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Speak for yourself.

---

I'm the only one who will. You have made it clear you're not interested in opinions other than the one you hold yourself in this case. I answered your silly question. The USSC has sided with the individual's right to keep and bear arms. Try to deflect this as much as you want, but this is largely a mental-health problem.

Apparently emotion is what is important in this debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave32111

...you're not interested in opinions other than the one you hold...

---

I thought you were going to speak for yourself!

Quote:

---

...this is largely a mental-health problem.

---

The mental health issue is a desperate diversion. The problem is that guns are so readily available that even children and the mentally ill have to problem obtaining them.

Quote:

---

Apparently emotion is what is important in this debate.

---

Duh...twenty first graders lie in their graves thanks to gun nuts and the NRA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave32111

...you're not interested in opinions other than the one you hold...

---

I thought you were going to speak for yourself!

Quote:

---

...this is largely a mental-health problem.

---

The mental health issue is a desperate diversion. The problem is that guns are so readily available that even children and the mentally ill have no problem obtaining them.

Quote:

---

Apparently emotion is what is important in this debate.

---

Duh...twenty first graders lie in their graves thanks to gun nuts and the NRA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave32111

The USSC has sided with the individual's right to keep and bear arms.

---

The Supreme Court has consistently declined to assert an individual's absolute right to bear arms. Even Heller left many of the provisions of DC's Firearms Control Regulations Act in place. Noted gun nut Antonin Scalia wrote that "military-grade" weapons are not provided Second Amendment Protections. Plus, Heller was decided 5-4, and Stevens wrote a very strongly worded dissent.

It's simply not accurate to say the USSC has decided this and it's over. Heller's attorney acknowledged that one vote made the difference. Indeed, had the Rhenquist Court not appointed George Bush President in 2000, John Roberts and Samuel Alito would not be on the Court, and DC's handgun ban would likely still stand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave32111

Try to deflect this as much as you want, but this is largely a mental-health problem.

---

Awesome. So we agree that no one in the U.S. should be permitted to take possession of a firearm without a background check and a waiting period, and that we need to radically expand the scope of the NICS. I personally have been lobbying HHS to stop defunding mental health services and research for almost 10 years now. Block grants to the states have been largely ineffective because they're too small and are poorly monitored and evaluated. Currently, states are not required to send mental health diagnoses to NICS; it's voluntary. And though PPACA does include some new funding for mental health services, at the request of the gun lobby, it also includes language that expressly prohibits physicians from asking patients being evaluated for mental health issues about their access to guns.

So the NRA doesn't think it's a mental health problem. I trust you'll call them and register your dissent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thombergeron

The Supreme Court has consistently declined to assert an individual's absolute right to bear arms. Even Heller left many of the provisions of DC's Firearms Control Regulations Act in place. Noted gun nut Antonin Scalia wrote that "military-grade" weapons are not provided Second Amendment Protections. Plus, Heller was decided 5-4, and Stevens wrote a very strongly worded dissent.

It's simply not accurate to say the USSC has decided this and it's over. Heller's attorney acknowledged that one vote made the difference. Indeed, had the Rhenquist Court not appointed George Bush President in 2000, John Roberts and Samuel Alito would not be on the Court, and DC's handgun ban would likely still stand.

---

The same could be more easily said about most of the federal regulations and programs that the left wing in this country hold dear. Social Security, Medicare, Federal Labor regulations, regulation of intra-state affairs via the inter-state commerce clause, and the right to an abortion were all products of the early-mid 20th century progressive era, and many were decided by split courts if I recall correctly. That's the nature of our system, and I wouldn't hold my breath for seeing Heller overturned anytime soon.

NYBURBS... these programmes should be "held dear" by everyone. They are designed to help make your nation a healtier, happier, safer and more just place. Unlike guns which are made for killing.

I think it's funny that the pro-gun people are anti-abortion, and the anti-gun people are pro-abortion,... I mean, pro-choice. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness......who writes this stuff?