in article , rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 1:41 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article t,
rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 12:35 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article , Scott
Weiser at
wrote on 2/19/05 10:10 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote:


Wilko

P.S. I'm still laughing because of the image of a bunch of
fat, out of
shape middle aged men with shotguns, pistols and hunting
rifles trying
to take on well trained troops with fully automatic
weapons,
grenade
lauchers, tanks, helicopter gunships and all kinds of
sophisticated
weaponry bought with the tax that those old men paid.

Not only would the U.S. version of the secret police
probably
pick up
most of them before they could fire a shot,

Well, that's impossible because we do not have a "secret
police" force and
we take great pains to ensure that even the local police do
not have access
to what records might exist on who owns what arms. That's
the
point of the
2nd Amendment. There are more than 300 million guns in
private
ownership in
the US, and the government has pretty much no idea
whatsoever
where the bulk
of those guns are or who has them. That's not a flaw in our
system, it's a
feature specifically intended by the Framers.

LOL. Yeah, that's what the "Framers" had in mind.
==================
I'd dare say yes, as compared to your model of confiscation
and
bans.


Hoods and angry
ex-husbands walking around with assault weapons that you can
buy on street
corners.
====================
You do like strawmen, don't you? What's an "assault weapon"?

Have you heard of George W. Wush aka George Junior? Apparently
he's the
President of the United States of America. He ssems to know
what an assault
weapon is.
==================
LOL Thanks for acknowledging that YOU don't have aclue, eh.

?


http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...t/2004-10-14-d
ebate-fact-check_x.htm

Bush said he favored extending the ban on assault weapons that
expired last
month but had not pushed Congress to do so because he had been
told the bill
couldn't pass. "Republicans and Democrats were against the
assault weapon
ban, people of both parties," Bush said. In fact, most
Republicans opposed
extending the ban; most Democrats supported it. The last time
it came up for
a vote, on March 2 in the Senate, it was passed, 52-47. Only 6
Democrats
opposed it, along with 41 Republicans. The tally shows that
most of the
opposition came from Bush's own party.

http://www.jayinslee.com/index.php?page=display&id=44

Assault weapons are commonly equipped with some or all of the
following
combat features:

A large-capacity ammunition magazine, enabling the shooter to
continuously
fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Standard hunting
rifles are usually
equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines.

A folding stock on a rifle or shotgun, which sacrifices
accuracy for
concealability and for mobility in close combat.

A pistol grip on a rifle or shotgun, which facilitates firing
from the hip,
allowing the shooter to spray-fire the weapon. A pistol grip
also helps the
shooter stabilize the firearm during rapid fire and makes it
easier to shoot
assault rifles one-handed.

A barrel shroud, which is designed to cool the barrel so the
firearm can
shoot many rounds in rapid succession without overheating. It
also allows
the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon,
without
incurring serious burns, during rapid fire.

A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor,
which serves
no useful sporting purpose. The flash suppressor allows the
shooter to
remain concealed when shooting at night, an advantage in combat
but
unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. In addition, the
flash
suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid fire,
helping the
shooter maintain control of the firearm.

A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer, which is
useful to
assassins but clearly has no purpose for sportsmen. Silencers
are illegal so
there is no legitimate purpose for making it possible to put a
silencer on a
weapon.

A barrel mount designed to accommodate a bayonet, which
obviously serves no
sporting purpose.

====

So, along with George Junior, do you now know what an assault weapon is?

I'm sure that's what the Framers had in mind...
======================
Actually, yes. The fact that military and hunting weapons were
not that much different then(or really now either)means nothing.
The fact is they were protecting the right to arm for military
purposes, not hunting.

Are these weapons being purchased and used for military purposes? As I said:

that a crack dealer can arm
his posse with assault weapons with a trip to the gun shack on
the corner
and spray the local park with semi-automatic (or perhaps
converted to
automatic) gunfire. Yep, that's an important freedom to
protect. In fact, I
understand that the USA is one of the best places for a
terrorist to pick up
an AK-47 these days.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article ,
rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 1:41 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
t,
rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 12:35 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article , Scott
Weiser at
wrote on 2/19/05 10:10 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote:


Wilko

P.S. I'm still laughing because of the image of a bunch
of
fat, out of
shape middle aged men with shotguns, pistols and hunting
rifles trying
to take on well trained troops with fully automatic
weapons,
grenade
lauchers, tanks, helicopter gunships and all kinds of
sophisticated
weaponry bought with the tax that those old men paid.

Not only would the U.S. version of the secret police
probably
pick up
most of them before they could fire a shot,

Well, that's impossible because we do not have a "secret
police" force and
we take great pains to ensure that even the local police
do
not have access
to what records might exist on who owns what arms. That's
the
point of the
2nd Amendment. There are more than 300 million guns in
private
ownership in
the US, and the government has pretty much no idea
whatsoever
where the bulk
of those guns are or who has them. That's not a flaw in
our
system, it's a
feature specifically intended by the Framers.

LOL. Yeah, that's what the "Framers" had in mind.
==================
I'd dare say yes, as compared to your model of confiscation
and
bans.


Hoods and angry
ex-husbands walking around with assault weapons that you
can
buy on street
corners.
====================
You do like strawmen, don't you? What's an "assault
weapon"?

Have you heard of George W. Wush aka George Junior?
Apparently
he's the
President of the United States of America. He ssems to know
what an assault
weapon is.
==================
LOL Thanks for acknowledging that YOU don't have aclue, eh.

?


http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...t/2004-10-14-d
ebate-fact-check_x.htm

Bush said he favored extending the ban on assault weapons
that
expired last
month but had not pushed Congress to do so because he had
been
told the bill
couldn't pass. "Republicans and Democrats were against the
assault weapon
ban, people of both parties," Bush said. In fact, most
Republicans opposed
extending the ban; most Democrats supported it. The last time
it came up for
a vote, on March 2 in the Senate, it was passed, 52-47. Only
6
Democrats
opposed it, along with 41 Republicans. The tally shows that
most of the
opposition came from Bush's own party.

http://www.jayinslee.com/index.php?page=display&id=44

Assault weapons are commonly equipped with some or all of the
following
combat features:

A large-capacity ammunition magazine, enabling the shooter to
continuously
fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Standard hunting
rifles are usually
equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines.

A folding stock on a rifle or shotgun, which sacrifices
accuracy for
concealability and for mobility in close combat.

A pistol grip on a rifle or shotgun, which facilitates firing
from the hip,
allowing the shooter to spray-fire the weapon. A pistol grip
also helps the
shooter stabilize the firearm during rapid fire and makes it
easier to shoot
assault rifles one-handed.

A barrel shroud, which is designed to cool the barrel so the
firearm can
shoot many rounds in rapid succession without overheating. It
also allows
the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon,
without
incurring serious burns, during rapid fire.

A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor,
which serves
no useful sporting purpose. The flash suppressor allows the
shooter to
remain concealed when shooting at night, an advantage in
combat
but
unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. In addition,
the
flash
suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid
fire,
helping the
shooter maintain control of the firearm.

A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer, which
is
useful to
assassins but clearly has no purpose for sportsmen. Silencers
are illegal so
there is no legitimate purpose for making it possible to put
a
silencer on a
weapon.

A barrel mount designed to accommodate a bayonet, which
obviously serves no
sporting purpose.

====

So, along with George Junior, do you now know what an assault
weapon is?

I'm sure that's what the Framers had in mind...
======================
Actually, yes. The fact that military and hunting weapons
were
not that much different then(or really now either)means
nothing.
The fact is they were protecting the right to arm for military
purposes, not hunting.

Are these weapons being purchased and used for military
purposes? As I said:
====================
That's not the claim. The claim was that they are what is
protected by rights. And actually, you have said nothing...




that a crack dealer can arm
his posse with assault weapons with a trip to the gun shack
on
the corner
and spray the local park with semi-automatic (or perhaps
converted to
automatic) gunfire. Yep, that's an important freedom to
protect. In fact, I
understand that the USA is one of the best places for a
terrorist to pick up
an AK-47 these days.
=====================
Ignorant spew... You're too hooked on hollywood for your
information, aren't you?

in article t, rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 5:32 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article ,
rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 1:41 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
t,
rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 12:35 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article , Scott
Weiser at
wrote on 2/19/05 10:10 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote:


Wilko

P.S. I'm still laughing because of the image of a bunch
of
fat, out of
shape middle aged men with shotguns, pistols and hunting
rifles trying
to take on well trained troops with fully automatic
weapons,
grenade
lauchers, tanks, helicopter gunships and all kinds of
sophisticated
weaponry bought with the tax that those old men paid.

Not only would the U.S. version of the secret police
probably
pick up
most of them before they could fire a shot,

Well, that's impossible because we do not have a "secret
police" force and
we take great pains to ensure that even the local police
do
not have access
to what records might exist on who owns what arms. That's
the
point of the
2nd Amendment. There are more than 300 million guns in
private
ownership in
the US, and the government has pretty much no idea
whatsoever
where the bulk
of those guns are or who has them. That's not a flaw in
our
system, it's a
feature specifically intended by the Framers.

LOL. Yeah, that's what the "Framers" had in mind.
==================
I'd dare say yes, as compared to your model of confiscation
and
bans.


Hoods and angry
ex-husbands walking around with assault weapons that you
can
buy on street
corners.
====================
You do like strawmen, don't you? What's an "assault
weapon"?

Have you heard of George W. Wush aka George Junior?
Apparently
he's the
President of the United States of America. He ssems to know
what an assault
weapon is.
==================
LOL Thanks for acknowledging that YOU don't have aclue, eh.

?



http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-14-
d
ebate-fact-check_x.htm

Bush said he favored extending the ban on assault weapons
that
expired last
month but had not pushed Congress to do so because he had
been
told the bill
couldn't pass. "Republicans and Democrats were against the
assault weapon
ban, people of both parties," Bush said. In fact, most
Republicans opposed
extending the ban; most Democrats supported it. The last time
it came up for
a vote, on March 2 in the Senate, it was passed, 52-47. Only
6
Democrats
opposed it, along with 41 Republicans. The tally shows that
most of the
opposition came from Bush's own party.

http://www.jayinslee.com/index.php?page=display&id=44

Assault weapons are commonly equipped with some or all of the
following
combat features:

A large-capacity ammunition magazine, enabling the shooter to
continuously
fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Standard hunting
rifles are usually
equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines.

A folding stock on a rifle or shotgun, which sacrifices
accuracy for
concealability and for mobility in close combat.

A pistol grip on a rifle or shotgun, which facilitates firing
from the hip,
allowing the shooter to spray-fire the weapon. A pistol grip
also helps the
shooter stabilize the firearm during rapid fire and makes it
easier to shoot
assault rifles one-handed.

A barrel shroud, which is designed to cool the barrel so the
firearm can
shoot many rounds in rapid succession without overheating. It
also allows
the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon,
without
incurring serious burns, during rapid fire.

A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor,
which serves
no useful sporting purpose. The flash suppressor allows the
shooter to
remain concealed when shooting at night, an advantage in
combat
but
unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. In addition,
the
flash
suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid
fire,
helping the
shooter maintain control of the firearm.

A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer, which
is
useful to
assassins but clearly has no purpose for sportsmen. Silencers
are illegal so
there is no legitimate purpose for making it possible to put
a
silencer on a
weapon.

A barrel mount designed to accommodate a bayonet, which
obviously serves no
sporting purpose.

====

So, along with George Junior, do you now know what an assault
weapon is?

I'm sure that's what the Framers had in mind...
======================
Actually, yes. The fact that military and hunting weapons
were
not that much different then(or really now either)means
nothing.
The fact is they were protecting the right to arm for military
purposes, not hunting.

Are these weapons being purchased and used for military
purposes? As I said:
====================
That's not the claim. The claim was that they are what is
protected by rights.

And I think that the right of a drug dealer to walk into his local corner
store and buy an assault weapon to shoot up the local park has diddly to do
with what the framers wanted.

that a crack dealer can arm
his posse with assault weapons with a trip to the gun shack
on
the corner
and spray the local park with semi-automatic (or perhaps
converted to
automatic) gunfire. Yep, that's an important freedom to
protect. In fact, I
understand that the USA is one of the best places for a
terrorist to pick up
an AK-47 these days.
=====================
Ignorant spew... You're too hooked on hollywood for your
information, aren't you?

CASES OF TERRORISTS PURCHASING GUNS IN THE UNITED STATES

1) ELN (NATIONAL LIBERATION ARMY) OF COLOMBIA -- The Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and US Customs have a recent case involving
weapons purchased in the US being trafficked to the ELN Guerilla movement
in Colombia. The case was started after the Colombian government seized 17
assault weapons (copies of the AK-47) from the ELN guerillas. They
requested a trace of the guns from the ATF here in the United States. The
guns had been sold to a Walter Macias in 1995 at a Florida gun store,
Garcia National. In the initial investigation, officials could not find
Walter Macias in the United States, despite the fact that he used a Florida
driver's license to purchase the weapons. After a second seizure of weapons
in 1997, which were traced back to Walter and Carlos Macias, authorities
realized that the Macias family was trafficking in firearms. The ATF
Agents checked other gun stores in the area and asked gun store owners to
alert them if they heard from the Macias brothers again. One local gun
dealer did call and alerted the authorities to an upcoming sale of 30
assault weapons. A co-conspirator to the Macias brothers eventually paid
$65,000 in cash for 30 assault weapons and attempted to illegally ship them
to Colombia. He was arrested by the ATF here in the United States and the
Macias brothers were arrested by authorities in Colombia. ATF officials
say this case is not unique and they have seen guns going to the FARC
(Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia), the ELN and the paramilitary
organizations in Colombia, all of which are on the US terrorism watch list.

2) THE IRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY -- Conor Claxton, a self-proclaimed member of
the IRA, traveled to Southern Florida several years ago and recruited
several other people to purchase handguns for him. He then illegally
shipped them to Ireland for use by the Provisional IRA. Claxton's
co-conspirators went to gun stores and gun shows and eventually found a
private seller to sell them large quantities of hand guns without any
background checks or reporting requirements to the ATF. Dozens of the guns
reached the IRA before officials became aware of the plot. The British
government contacted the US after they seized several of the guns and the
ATF realized it had already been watching one of the gun purchasers because
of suspicious multiple purchases. The investigation led to the arrest and
prosecution of four people in Fort Lauderdale, FL.

3) THE HEZBOLLAH -- ATF agents arrested Ali Boumelhem, 35, in November 2000
and accused him of shipping guns and ammunition to Hezbollah militants in
Lebanon, allegedly hiding the arms in cargo crates. Federal agents say they
watched Boumelhem, a resident of Detroit and Beirut, travel to gun shows to
buy gun parts and ammunition for shipment overseas. Boumelhem was arrested
by the FBI's joint terrorism task force, just before he was scheduled to
travel to Lebanon, authorities said. He is accused of being a leader in
Amal, a Lebanese militia organization, and a sympathizer with Hezbollah.


BALLISTIC FINGERPRINTING AND THE SNIPER CASE

Police often find shell casings and spent cartridges at crime scenes. The
technology now exists to trace those cartridges back to a specific gun, but
would require the cooperation of gun manufacturers. The gun makers would
have to keep a test fire from each gun made and link that spent cartridge
to the serial number of the gun. The unique markings on this cartridge
would then be digitized using laser imaging. Then, in a case like the
sniper case in Washington, DC, police could trace the cartridge back to a
specific gun. When they have a serial number for the gun, they can trace
the gun back to the original purchaser and this often provides concrete
leads for the criminal investigation.

While this is a complicated process, two states, New York and Maryland,
already have laws putting this system into practice. The sniper case
spurred enormous interest in further developing this process for a
nationwide ballistics fingerprinting system.


DANNY PEARL AND SHEIK JILANI

When Danny Pearl, the WALL STREET JOURNAL reporter, was abducted in
Pakistan, he was on his way to try to visit the leader of the Jamaat al
Fuqra group, Sheik Mubarak Jilani. Al Fuqra is one of the suspected
terrorist groups mentioned in GUN LAND . Pearl was doing research on
Richard Reid, the shoe-bomb suspect, and was following a lead that Reid had
studied and trained under Jilani at his compound in Lahore, Pakistan.

Pearl had gone to the US Embassy to discuss trying to find Jilani in
Pakistan and was warned by Embassy officials to not pursue an interview
with Jilani by himself. After Pearl's abduction, Jilani himself was
arrested in Pakistan but was later released and is not considered to be
involved with Pearl's death.

Sheik Jilani himself has long-standing connections with the Pakistani
intelligence service, the ISI, and has been linked to another Pakistani
terrorist group, Harkat-ul-Mujahidden. Jamaat al Fuqra targeted
African-American Muslims in the United States to combat those who they
consider enemies ‹ Hindus, Jews, and Muslims who stray from a conservative
religious practices. Jilani's motto -- "to purify Islam through violence."

Sources: The Associated Press and THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET
JOURNAL, and others.

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/gunland.html

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article t,
rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 5:32 PM:


snippage...

I'm sure that's what the Framers had in mind...
======================
Actually, yes. The fact that military and hunting weapons
were
not that much different then(or really now either)means
nothing.
The fact is they were protecting the right to arm for
military
purposes, not hunting.

Are these weapons being purchased and used for military
purposes? As I said:
====================
That's not the claim. The claim was that they are what is
protected by rights.

And I think that the right of a drug dealer to walk into his
local corner
store and buy an assault weapon to shoot up the local park has
diddly to do
with what the framers wanted.
=======================
I see your idiocy still commands your mind. Too bad Psychiatric
waiting times for you are even longer...
The drug dealer has no protected right to buy any weapons. If
fact, is prohibited from just that action. Again, your
ideological ignorance is getting in the way of rationality, eh?




snip rest of spew...

in article t, rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 10:55 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article t,
rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 5:32 PM:


snippage...

I'm sure that's what the Framers had in mind...
======================
Actually, yes. The fact that military and hunting weapons
were
not that much different then(or really now either)means
nothing.
The fact is they were protecting the right to arm for
military
purposes, not hunting.

Are these weapons being purchased and used for military
purposes? As I said:
====================
That's not the claim. The claim was that they are what is
protected by rights.

And I think that the right of a drug dealer to walk into his
local corner
store and buy an assault weapon to shoot up the local park has
diddly to do
with what the framers wanted.
=======================
I see your idiocy still commands your mind. Too bad Psychiatric
waiting times for you are even longer...
The drug dealer has no protected right to buy any weapons. If
fact, is prohibited from just that action.

Wow! How progressive! Drug dealers are banned from purchasing assault
weapons? Does Heston know about this? Surely the Framers would be alarmed!

Again, your ideological ignorance

Please explain what my "ideological ignorance" would be here. Do you mean
that I am lacking in ideology, and therefore my view is not valid, or do you
mean that I have an ideology that is ignorant? Assuming the latter, what is
my ideology, and why is it ignorant?

is getting in the way of rationality, eh?

I think the fact that more than 30,000 Americans will be killed by guns at
the hands of their fellow citizens this year is massively irrational.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article t,
rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 10:55 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
t,
rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 5:32 PM:


snippage...

I'm sure that's what the Framers had in mind...
======================
Actually, yes. The fact that military and hunting weapons
were
not that much different then(or really now either)means
nothing.
The fact is they were protecting the right to arm for
military
purposes, not hunting.

Are these weapons being purchased and used for military
purposes? As I said:
====================
That's not the claim. The claim was that they are what is
protected by rights.

And I think that the right of a drug dealer to walk into his
local corner
store and buy an assault weapon to shoot up the local park
has
diddly to do
with what the framers wanted.
=======================
I see your idiocy still commands your mind. Too bad
Psychiatric
waiting times for you are even longer...
The drug dealer has no protected right to buy any weapons. If
fact, is prohibited from just that action.

Wow! How progressive! Drug dealers are banned from purchasing
assault
weapons? Does Heston know about this? Surely the Framers would
be alarmed!
======================
LOL Too bad your sarcasm doesn't substitute for reality fool.
That you are too stupid, willfully?, to know that the local drug
dealer isn't going to be able to walk into a gun store and
purchase weapons tells us that you get all your 'data' from
holloywood. Nave try, idiot, but you ideology is showing again.




Again, your ideological ignorance

Please explain what my "ideological ignorance" would be here.
Do you mean
that I am lacking in ideology, and therefore my view is not
valid, or do you
mean that I have an ideology that is ignorant? Assuming the
latter, what is
my ideology, and why is it ignorant?
==============================
Because it can belive the ignorant spews you come up with. Nay,
not just believe, but relish them.



is getting in the way of rationality, eh?

I think the fact that more than 30,000 Americans will be killed
by guns at
the hands of their fellow citizens this year is massively
irrational.
========================
Tell me, how many were with these so-called assault weapons, by
the corner drug-dealer.

"rick" wrote in message
news

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article t, rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 10:55 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article t,
rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 5:32 PM:


snippage...

I'm sure that's what the Framers had in mind...
======================
Actually, yes. The fact that military and hunting weapons
were
not that much different then(or really now either)means
nothing.
The fact is they were protecting the right to arm for
military
purposes, not hunting.

Are these weapons being purchased and used for military
purposes? As I said:
====================
That's not the claim. The claim was that they are what is
protected by rights.

And I think that the right of a drug dealer to walk into his
local corner
store and buy an assault weapon to shoot up the local park has
diddly to do
with what the framers wanted.
=======================
I see your idiocy still commands your mind. Too bad Psychiatric
waiting times for you are even longer...
The drug dealer has no protected right to buy any weapons. If
fact, is prohibited from just that action.

Wow! How progressive! Drug dealers are banned from purchasing assault
weapons? Does Heston know about this? Surely the Framers would be
alarmed!
======================
LOL Too bad your sarcasm doesn't substitute for reality fool. That you
are too stupid, willfully?, to know that the local drug dealer isn't going
to be able to walk into a gun store and purchase weapons tells us that you
get all your 'data' from holloywood. Nave try, idiot, but you ideology is
showing again.

LOL. Yeah, I hear drug dealers complaining all the time how hard it is for
them to get guns.




Again, your ideological ignorance

Please explain what my "ideological ignorance" would be here. Do you mean
that I am lacking in ideology, and therefore my view is not valid, or do
you
mean that I have an ideology that is ignorant? Assuming the latter, what
is
my ideology, and why is it ignorant?
==============================
Because it can belive the ignorant spews you come up with. Nay, not just
believe, but relish them.

Can you try that again in English?



is getting in the way of rationality, eh?

I think the fact that more than 30,000 Americans will be killed by guns
at
the hands of their fellow citizens this year is massively irrational.
========================
Tell me, how many were with these so-called assault weapons, by the corner
drug-dealer.

Why are you offended by the term assault weapons?

If there are national statistics on gun deaths through drug related offences
I'd be interested to see them.