Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33

Thread: CCDL demonizing guns?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    89

    Thumbs down CCDL demonizing guns?

    Why would CCDL support HB 5269 which increases penalties for use of firearms in crimes?

    If punishments for crime (murder, rape, robbery, etc..) really need to be harsher, fine, but don't pretend guns make the basic crime more evil, and thereby give the antis more ammo against us and guns.

    How will CCDL tell a woman her attacker/rapist shouldn't be punished as much "because he only used a screwdriver" and not an evil gun?

    Sometimes gun owners bending over too far backward are our own worst enemies.

    Shheesh! This bill that pretends to blame guns should be OPPOSED!
    Last edited by Riverdance; 01-20-2013 at 11:05 AM.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverdance View Post
    Why would CCDL support HB 5269 which increases penalties for use of firearms in crimes?

    If punishments for crime (murder, rape, robbery, etc..) really need to be harsher, fine, but don't pretend some tool is more evil than others, and thereby give the antis more ammo against us and guns.

    How will CCDL tell a woman her attacker/rapist shouldn't be punished as much "because he only used a screwdriver" and not an evil gun?

    Sometimes gun owners bending over too far backward are our own worst enemies.

    Shheesh! This bill that pretends to blame guns should be OPPOSED!

    Sec. 53a-216. Criminal use of firearm or electronic defense weapon: Class D felony. (a) A person is guilty of criminal use of a firearm or electronic defense weapon when he commits any class A, B or C or unclassified felony as defined in section 53a-25 and in the commission of such felony he uses or threatens the use of a pistol, revolver, machine gun, shotgun, rifle or other firearm or electronic defense weapon. No person shall be convicted of criminal use of a firearm or electronic defense weapon and the underlying felony upon the same transaction but such person may be charged and prosecuted for both such offenses upon the same information.

    (b) Criminal use of a firearm or electronic defense weapon is a class D felony for which five years of the sentence imposed may not be suspended or reduced by the court.



    I would tend to agree with the basic premise of what Riverdance states. This would throw a wide net over some crimes that people may seem to be excessive. The law says "uses or threatens" ... its the threaten part that is of a concern. Simply because someone threatens he gets 5 years? Seems too much to me.

    Some felonies should not even be felonies IMO ... so that's another aspect for folks to consider.

    CCDL may wish to reconsider their position (assuming it is their position of course).

  3. #3
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    I'll be the first to say I endorsed the stance myself.

    I'm mobile now and will look at the existing language to see if/where any changes are. I can't say I'm against any charges against a criminal either way (with or without a gun). Given that I don't care if a criminal gets any additional time he most likely won't have to serve, I can't see myself why this is a big issue.

    However, I will look at the existing laws again and see if it indeed causes any real changes.

    To say CCDL demonizing guns is a HUGE stretch..... really..... HUGE stretch there...... just sayin'.......

    Jonathan
    www.ctpistolpermitissues.com - tracking all the local issuing authority, DPS and other insanity with permit issues
    www.ctgunsafety.com - my blog and growing list of links useful to gun owners (especially in Connecticut).

    Rich B: My favorite argument against OC being legal in CT is "I have never seen someone OC in CT".
    I have never seen a person drink tea from a coke bottle while standing on their head, that doesn't mean it is illegal.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Lenny Benedetto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    VP of CCDL, Inc., ,
    Posts
    470
    Proposed Bill No. 5269

    Introduced by:
    REP. SAMPSON, 80th Dist

    Statement of Purpose:
    To increase the penalty for criminal use of a firearm or electronic defense weapon from a class D felony to a class C felony

    Rob Sampson the author of this is the most pro gun elected official that we have up in Hartford!
    Increasing the penalty for CRIMES committed with guns is fine with CCDL since we are law abiding citizens.

    To even consider that CCDL could ever, be involved with demonizing guns is a FOOLISH statement on your part!!!!!
    The Connecticut Citizens Defense League is a non-partisan, grassroots organization devoted to advocating rights affirmed by the Constitutions of the United States of America and the State of Connecticut. We are especially dedicated to protecting the unalienable right of all citizens to keep and bear arms, for the defense of both self and state, through public enlightenment and legislative action.
    Join Here: http://www.ccdl.us/membership

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    89

    Increasing penalty for guns

    Lenny, I think what you are missing is that the bill is not applying penalties for CRIMES, it is applying a penalty for GUNS.
    Last edited by Riverdance; 01-14-2013 at 07:15 PM.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by KIX View Post
    I'll be the first to say I endorsed the stance myself.

    I'm mobile now and will look at the existing language to see if/where any changes are. I can't say I'm against any charges against a criminal either way (with or without a gun). Given that I don't care if a criminal gets any additional time he most likely won't have to serve, I can't see myself why this is a big issue.

    However, I will look at the existing laws again and see if it indeed causes any real changes.

    To say CCDL demonizing guns is a HUGE stretch..... really..... HUGE stretch there...... just sayin'.......

    Jonathan
    Hi John,

    Just remember just threatening will get you five ... so any cop can just SAY you threatened and you'll be in the slammer 5 years ... I would think that every case moving forward could have this issue.

    Do I trust cops THAT much...no. They have routinely lied under oath in most instances I have had them under oath.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    89

    Who do you represent?

    Supporting this bill gives the politician cover and bragging rights to his anti-gun constituents at your (and our) expense.

    Beware of exercising NRA-style "access politics" where because the politician knows you by name, claps you on the back, smiles, shakes your hand, and allows you into his office you end up representing HIM to gun owners instead of the other way around. When they're wrong, you need to cause him PAIN, even (especially) if they're pretty good on guns - they can't take you for granted for their own political needs.

    I remain incredulous that the MAJORITY of the CCDL Board of Directors could have voted support for this anti-gun bill. Unless they are all "yes men" I have to surmise you've veered from the critical board concept and now allow one or two to decide, which vastly increases your chances of not understanding all the ramifications and consequences of your actions.

    Please reconsider your support for demonizing guns.
    Last edited by Riverdance; 01-20-2013 at 11:04 AM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Sec. 53a-216. Criminal use of firearm or electronic defense weapon: Class D felony. (a) A person is guilty of criminal use of a firearm or electronic defense weapon when he commits any class A, B or C or unclassified felony as defined in section 53a-25 and in the commission of such felony he uses or threatens the use of a pistol, revolver, machine gun, shotgun, rifle or other firearm or electronic defense weapon. No person shall be convicted of criminal use of a firearm or electronic defense weapon and the underlying felony upon the same transaction but such person may be charged and prosecuted for both such offenses upon the same information.

    (b) Criminal use of a firearm or electronic defense weapon is a class D felony for which five years of the sentence imposed may not be suspended or reduced by the court.



    I would tend to agree with the basic premise of what Riverdance states. This would throw a wide net over some crimes that people may seem to be excessive. The law says "uses or threatens" ... its the threaten part that is of a concern. Simply because someone threatens he gets 5 years? Seems too much to me.

    Some felonies should not even be felonies IMO ... so that's another aspect for folks to consider.

    CCDL may wish to reconsider their position (assuming it is their position of course).
    +1

    Everyone is selling us out. I was just reading how SAF is backing expanding background checks and keeping guns from the mentally ill. Will that be like how NY is getting rid of due process and a Dr. saying you're a danger is enough to seize your weapons?

    /rant
    Last edited by sharkey; 01-14-2013 at 11:27 PM.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by sharkey View Post
    +1

    Everyone is selling us out. I was just reading how SAF is backing expanding background checks and keeping guns from the mentally ill. Will that be like how NY is getting rid of due process and a Dr. saying you're a danger is enough to seize your weapons?

    /rant
    Will we have to see gov't shrinks to get "approved" .. and to see one on a semi-annual basis or monthly basis?

    Supporters of gun control measures to insure that loonies don't get guns would have to support this aspect of the issue. And in the Sandy Hook case, would this then be expanded into the household members too?

    Or does it even need a doctor? The BFPE has already stated that although they have no mental health expertise but they feel confident that they can claim that I would be involved in a horrible incident IF allowed to have a permit (like having or not having a permit would stop anyone, right?) although the record before them shows no leanings towards violence. All governmental bodies will try to label people who stand up for their rights as terrorists, loonies, etc. Would BPFE imagination be enough to remove a gun owner's rights? The DMV? A secretary at your town hall? Why not? The legislature already considered letting a secretary to have the authority to issue search warrants in the last session.

    People look at a bill and say "that sounds reasonable" when in fact its not. Who are the loonies ... our representatives when it comes to gun control issues.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Lenny Benedetto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    VP of CCDL, Inc., ,
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverdance View Post
    Lenny, I think what you are missing is that the bill is not applying penalties for CRIMES, it is applying a penalty for GUNS.
    No what you are missing is CRIMES with guns.....Not a penalty for guns.
    The Connecticut Citizens Defense League is a non-partisan, grassroots organization devoted to advocating rights affirmed by the Constitutions of the United States of America and the State of Connecticut. We are especially dedicated to protecting the unalienable right of all citizens to keep and bear arms, for the defense of both self and state, through public enlightenment and legislative action.
    Join Here: http://www.ccdl.us/membership

  11. #11
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Lenny Benedetto View Post
    No what you are missing is CRIMES with guns.....Not a penalty for guns.
    The tool (gun) increases the penalty from a 'D' to a 'C'. Are other "weapons" being included or is it just the gun? It seems, from the outside looking in, that the tool may different from one violent crime to the next, because intent to comit a violent crime certainly is not different.

    I concur, this legislation is about the gun and not the crime.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Lenny Benedetto View Post
    No what you are missing is CRIMES with guns.....Not a penalty for guns.
    If it was WITH guns it would be different but it includes "threaten" which means without an actual gun, just the threat of using one.... so no gun has to actually be there, just testimony that a person "threatened" to use one later.

    And it would cover too many crimes .. see Heller I and McDonald cases for excessive penalties discussed..

  13. #13
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    I look at it this way:

    A threat is a threat, and there are already laws on that issue.

    A criminal commits a crime with a gun, or any weapon, it's still jail.

    Am I worked up over this? No. I still see it targeting CRIME, not lawful gun ownership. The way I see it, a CRIME doesn't affect me.

    As far as Rob Sampson goes, I've worked with him as well. He has been stand up for us and our rights from the beginning. If I thought something was wrong, I know I can get some face time with him to discuss the issue - AND HE'S NOT EVEN MY REP!

    So far, I'm not impressed with the hypothetical situations mentioned.

    Jonathan
    www.ctpistolpermitissues.com - tracking all the local issuing authority, DPS and other insanity with permit issues
    www.ctgunsafety.com - my blog and growing list of links useful to gun owners (especially in Connecticut).

    Rich B: My favorite argument against OC being legal in CT is "I have never seen someone OC in CT".
    I have never seen a person drink tea from a coke bottle while standing on their head, that doesn't mean it is illegal.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    29
    Since almost everyone who opposes this is not only from out of state, but from a safe progun state as well, they are probably not familiar with the sponsor of this bill, Rep Rob Sampson. Let me just say this. Not only is he by FAR the most progun state legislator we have, he may very well be the ONLY friend we have in Hartford. Rob's a real gun guy himself, unlike NY's Mario "nooooobody neeeeeds 10 rounds to kill a deeeeeeer!" Cuomo. I've shot silhouette matches with him and his dad. This is CT, Home of Sandy Hook, where the other supposed Second Amendment supporters are the ones proposing mag limits, and the already antigun ones are having wet dreams over ONE round mag limits, 50% tax on guns and ammo, and worse. There is NOBODY in Hartford trying to protect the rights of gun owners in CT harder then Rob. Rob's HB 5269 is basically making it more illegal to to something illegal. Ya know, if I have to give 'em that in exchange for not banning every gun that holds more then one round, I think I'm ok with that. Maybe if I lived in Arizona or Virginia I'd feel differently too.

  15. #15
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    I support HB 5269, ONLY IF: 1) our current state AWB stays the same or becomes LESS restrictive. AND: 2) NO legislation passes that would limit any type of magazine or ammunition feeding device for ANY type of firearm within the state of CT

    reason I say "less restrictive", is because some things in it are just plain rediculous. like the collapsible stock. WTF does that have to do with any type of assault weapon? do they think we're going to shrink a rifle down by the 3 inches of movement the stock has and suddenly stick it in our coat pocket and completely conceal it from any viewer??? I mean really, these idiots are beyond idiots. collapsible stocks are to allow for adjustment SO THE SHOOTER CAN HOLD THE GUN SAFELY/COMFORTABLY FOR THEIR BODY FIGURE!!!
    and no bayonnett lug? why the eff not?? when's the last time someone was bayonnetted in CT? how is it a crime to have a bayonnet lug, or even a bayonnett? not to mention they can NOT mention anything regarding the constitution and bayonnetts, because that for one is definitely something that was in common use at the time the constitution was written.

    and the proposed mag capacity limits are just as ludacris as the single shot firearms bill. I don't care what magical number these freaks think will change anything, but I for one will NEVER agree with ANY type of magazine capacity limit, whether it be 1, 5, 7, 10, 15, 20, 30, 50, 100, 1000... etc etc. if ANY form of magazine capacity limit passes, they better be prepared to pay $50+ PER MAGAZINE to buy back every one of them in the state. Hell, I paid $50 shipped (per mag) for oem mags for my handgun before Newtown occurred, I can only imagine what some people are paying for them currently.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    89

    Next Year's CCDL Supported Bill:

    Jaywalking fine: $200
    Jayalking with a Gun fine: $1000

    Speeding Ticket: $300
    Speeding with a gun ticket: $2000


    CCDL: "Its about CRIME, and has nothing to do with the GUN; anyway the patron is my friend"
    Last edited by Riverdance; 01-15-2013 at 07:26 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverdance View Post
    Jaywalking fine: $200
    Jayalking with a Gun fine: $1000

    Speeding Ticket: $300
    Speeding with a gun ticket: $2000


    CCDL: "Its about CRIME, and has nothing to do with the GUN; anyway the patron is my friend"
    are you flucking kidding me?!?!?!?! I am now absolutely OUTRAGED at CCDL for this!! (IF the above is true)

    riverdance, please tell me you made the above up. otherwise please post a link stating the above to be true
    Last edited by motoxmann; 01-15-2013 at 10:27 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    60
    It's not even crimes WITH a gun. It's crimes USING a gun. I suppose if you use your gun to make your car speed, that should be an extra crime, too. We all stand for responsible gun ownership and use. The flip side of the right to keep and bear arms is the responsibility to use them safely. Criminal use is by definition not safe use, and I think it should be punished more harshly than using a stick or a knife unsafely, and even those should be punished more harshly than using your bare hands unsafely.

    Plus, we can count this as a "compromise" in exchange for getting to keep our full-capacity magazines, or something along those lines. Hey, we gave the antis something, right?

    By the way. The only form of threatening that's a felony is when you threaten to use a WMD.

    Sec. 53a-61aa. Threatening in the first degree: Class D felony. (a) A person is guilty of threatening in the first degree when such person (1) (A) threatens to commit any crime involving the use of a hazardous substance with the intent to terrorize another person, to cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly or facility of public transportation or otherwise to cause serious public inconvenience, or (B) threatens to commit such crime in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror, evacuation or inconvenience, or (2) (A) threatens to commit any crime of violence with the intent to cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly or facility of public transportation or otherwise to cause serious public inconvenience, or (B) threatens to commit such crime in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such evacuation or inconvenience.

    (b) For the purposes of this section, "hazardous substance" means any physical, chemical, biological or radiological substance or matter which, because of its quantity, concentration or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics, may cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitating reversible illness, or pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health.

    (c) Threatening in the first degree is a class D felony.
    So unless you threaten to SHOOT your nuke to set it off, you wouldn't be doing it with a gun. Otherwise, it's a Class A misdemeanor.

    Sec. 53a-63. Reckless endangerment in the first degree: Class A misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the first degree when, with extreme indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a risk of serious physical injury to another person.

    (b) Reckless endangerment in the first degree is a class A misdemeanor.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by motoxmann View Post
    I support HB 5269, ONLY IF: 1) our current state AWB stays the same or becomes LESS restrictive. AND: 2) NO legislation passes that would limit any type of magazine or ammunition feeding device for ANY type of firearm within the state of CT
    .
    Our current assault weapons ban was affirmed by the Benjamin case ... and based on several IL opinions. But the opinions were overturned in Heller I.

    The AWB CT supreme court case was before Heller so NO consideration of the 2nd amendment was given to the outcome.

    Our AWB is unconstitutional. Re-read both the Benjamin and Heller I case and compare the two,,,a light-bulb should shine afterwards.

    Happy reading.

  20. #20
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    thank you for clarifying

  21. #21
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066

    Maybe CCDL should join the NCSTGB

    ‘NATIONAL COALITION TO STOP THE GUN BAN’
    That is why GRNC, in conjunction with other groups, has formed a national coalition to defeat the Obama/Biden/Feinstein proposal.

    • 19 state and federal organizations have so far joined the “National Coalition to Stop the Gun Ban,” including all of the groups listed below;
    • The objective of the coalition is to kill the proposals. Period. Not to “compromise” by saddling gun owners with restrictions and whining “It was the best we could get.” Nothing less than the death of the Obama/Biden/Feinstein proposals will suffice;
    • All coalition members have agreed that “compromise” is not an option; AND
    • Coalition members launched with a coordinated “Open Letter to Members of Congress” which is listed at the bottom of this alert, and with coordinated press releases and membership alerts.

    COALITION MEMBERS
    National organizations: The Firearms Coalition, Gun Owners of America, Rights Watch International, USRKBA.org
    State organizations: Arizona Citizens Defense League, Arkansas Carry, Florida Carry, Inc., Grass Roots North Carolina, Gun Owners of Maine, Gun Owners of Vermont, Michigan Gun Owners, The Minnesota Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance, Montana Shooting Sports Association, New Hampshire Firearms Coalition, Nebraska Firearms Owners Association, Oregon Firearms Federation, Virginia Citizens Defense League, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

  22. #22
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by sharkey View Post
    ‘NATIONAL COALITION TO STOP THE GUN BAN’
    That is why GRNC, in conjunction with other groups, has formed a national coalition to defeat the Obama/Biden/Feinstein proposal.

    • 19 state and federal organizations have so far joined the “National Coalition to Stop the Gun Ban,” including all of the groups listed below;
    • The objective of the coalition is to kill the proposals. Period. Not to “compromise” by saddling gun owners with restrictions and whining “It was the best we could get.” Nothing less than the death of the Obama/Biden/Feinstein proposals will suffice;
    • All coalition members have agreed that “compromise” is not an option; AND
    • Coalition members launched with a coordinated “Open Letter to Members of Congress” which is listed at the bottom of this alert, and with coordinated press releases and membership alerts.

    COALITION MEMBERS
    National organizations: The Firearms Coalition, Gun Owners of America, Rights Watch International, USRKBA.org
    State organizations: Arizona Citizens Defense League, Arkansas Carry, Florida Carry, Inc., Grass Roots North Carolina, Gun Owners of Maine, Gun Owners of Vermont, Michigan Gun Owners, The Minnesota Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance, Montana Shooting Sports Association, New Hampshire Firearms Coalition, Nebraska Firearms Owners Association, Oregon Firearms Federation, Virginia Citizens Defense League, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
    Rich, would CT Carry be willing to join this?

  23. #23
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by motoxmann View Post
    Rich, would CT Carry be willing to join this?
    This is something we would have to discuss with the board of directors, but my feeling on it is that we are a state-level organization and I am not sure what real support or meaning we could lend to a national coalition like this. Our resources in Connecticut are pretty limited and we are bound to be on the front lines for a long time here.


    I don't see any of the premises or principles that I disagree with, nor do I see them at odds with our mission statement. We have always been 'no compromise'. I believe that our record last session confirms this:

    http://ctcarry.com/Legislative/Session2012

    The groups involved in the coalition have been in communication with us previously (not regarding this subject though) and know how to reach us if they think we can lend assistance in some way. We are very realistic about our support and our resources though.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  24. #24
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by motoxmann View Post
    Rich, would CT Carry be willing to join this?
    They joined.

    I mean CCDL, not CT carry.
    Last edited by sharkey; 01-19-2013 at 04:19 AM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    89
    Definitely a plus. Affiliation with our pro-gun coalition will hopefully help educate CCDL to avoid being duped in the future into supporting anti-gun legislation like HB 5269
    Last edited by Riverdance; 01-19-2013 at 07:59 AM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •