# Looks as if the rumors are true.



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Beretta: Gun law forcing move out of Maryland


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

I think all liberals should move to the NE and California so they can live happily dumb so the rest of us can live happily ever after.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> I think all liberals should move to the NE and California so they can live happily dumb so the rest of us can live happily ever after.


What about Liberals who like guns?


----------



## olroy (Aug 29, 2013)

GCBHM said:


> I think all liberals should move to the NE and California so they can live happily dumb so the rest of us can live happily ever after.


Now wait just one cotton-pickin' minute here! Some of us Californians ain't that way!:buttkick::smt1099:smt002


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

If its true its not a rumor......


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

SailDesign said:


> What about Liberals who like guns?


As long as they don't vote for socialists and wrap themselves in the socialist doctrine, they're welcome to stay.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

paratrooper said:


> Beretta: Gun law forcing move out of Maryland


We've know about this for a while here. Beretta was considering a move to Virginia because it is just across the river and they would most likely be able to hang on to most of their staff but then we got hoodwinked and Terry McAuliffe was elected last year as our governor. Hence, Beretta dropped us from their list of favorites.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> As long as they don't vote for socialists and wrap themselves in the socialist doctrine, they're welcome to stay.


Agreed! No socialist pigs allowed. Only liberty loving/defending Americans.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

olroy said:


> Now wait just one cotton-pickin' minute here! Some of us Californians ain't that way!:buttkick::smt1099:smt002


Yeah, California is large enough to divide. Good ones get the pick of the litter. My guess would be Southern California. Push the socialist liberals north to the cold.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> Agreed! No socialist pigs allowed. Only liberty loving/defending Americans.


And people say this country isn't divided.... So are you guys Tea Potties, or just Right-wingnuts? (if we're going to start slanging)


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> And people say this country isn't divided.... So are you guys Tea Potties, or just Right-wingnuts? (if we're going to start slanging)


That said - if we all enjoy shooting, and want guns to stick around, wouldn't you guys be better off welcoming the Others to the fold a bit, instead of trying to alienate a large number of people who are on your side but don't happen to "do" the whole CCW NRA thing? Divided we fall.... Just sayin'


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

I'm not a TPer or RW nut or NRA member. I am conservative and a lover of liberty. I don't mind people being liberal, but it seems that most liberals aren't satisfied with live and let live. Instead, they're more determined to convert everyone to their mindset, and if you dare to disagree, they want to shut you up, run you out, stop you in your tracks. I'm mearly suggesting that they all go to a place where they don't have to contend with us idiots. There, they can have all the gun control, free healthcare (contraception so they can live like fools) and gummint handouts they want, and leave the rest of us to live how we prefer. Liberals are not content to be on my side and not do the whole "CCW NRA thing". They want what the want regardless of who or what it costs, and I'm sick of the blatant double standard, frankly. IF liberals would live and let live, sure we could all get along. But they don't! Just sayin.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

+1 brother. I don't care if they're around, I just don't want them around me. Leave me alone. Can't stand their attitude about having to protect us from ourselves. Darwin's theory will take care of that, so the libs just need to let it be.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Exactly! We are all entitled to be stupid if we want. I wouldn't ride a motorcycle without a helmet, but why should someone be regulated to death all b/c some moron wants political capital? The likes of Michael Bloomberg banning 20oz soft drinks in NYC b/c he thinks they are unhealthy? PLEASE!!! If you don't want to drink them then don't, but leave me alone. (I don't drink many soft drinks, but you get the point.) There ins't a "large number of people" who are on our side over guns but not on most social issues. I don't know very many liberals who love or want guns. Not saying there aren't any, just not many. Most liberals are too enlightened to be on anyone's side who does not agree with them on everything.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> <snip> Liberals are not content to be on my side and not do the whole "CCW NRA thing". They want what the want regardless of who or what it costs, and I'm sick of the blatant double standard, frankly. IF liberals would live and let live, sure we could all get along. But they don't! Just sayin.


Very happy to be on your side, but there is a marked lack of encouragement to help out unless I think like you. Have you noticed me saying anything against CCW or NRA here? No, don't think so. I have no beef either way. You want to carry? Go for it (but where I live it is a MAY issue state, and incredibly hard to get that permit even if I did want it)


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

I'm perfectly content to have an opposing viewpoint, as long as that opposing viewpoint does not cause loss of freedoms for those who disagree with that viewpoint. Such has not been the case in recent years, with the radical left in charge of government bureaucracies. This 20-25% of the public has been quite successful at misrepresenting their ideology to attract enough moronic one issue idealists and wards of the government to win elections. 

This is a recipe for disaster that moderate (gun-loving?) liberals turn a blind eye to, because they think they are on the winning side and will share in the glory that the liberal elites have been enjoying, i.e. that guns will only be taken away from the ********. Thanks to the major media, Hollywood, and leftist college professors, the language has been successfully re-defined to a degree that about half of all new voters actually believe that socialistic policies can work, despite the ample history that shows they never have. 

One can only hope that these so-called moderate liberals eventually do become as 'enlightened' as they think they already are. Or, failing that, we can still hope that conservatives and libertarians get together and think up some new labels for themselves, so they can run for election as something that has not yet had it's platform sawed out from under it with the Sol Alinski propaganda methods that the left has embraced whole-heartedly.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> Very happy to be on your side, but there is a marked lack of encouragement to help out unless I think like you. Have you noticed me saying anything against CCW or NRA here? No, don't think so. I have no beef either way. You want to carry? Go for it (but where I live it is a MAY issue state, and incredibly hard to get that permit even if I did want it)


Like I said, I have no problem with people being liberal. If you are content to let me be, then have at whatever you wish, but most liberals are not. I have had the gun control discussion with several who just refuse to accept facts or truth. All they want is to restrict access to guns for law abiding citizens. I have to believe you have to have help to misunderstand the fact that blaming guns and penalizing law abiding citizens for the behavior of a few criminals is insane. You're not going to get guns off the streets, not ever. And you're not going to stop violent criminals by taking guns away from the law abiding element of society. Background checks do nothing to stop the criminals from getting guns b/c they do not get their guns from the local gun store. Anyone who thinks you can legislate and regulate violent crime out like this is simply daft.

So, if you are very happy to be on the side of liberty, although you may hold liberal social views, welcome! You would be the exception to the rule, a welcome one at that.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Bisley said:


> I'm perfectly content to have an opposing viewpoint, as long as that opposing viewpoint does not cause loss of freedoms for those who disagree with that viewpoint. Such has not been the case in recent years, with the radical left in charge of government bureaucracies. This 20-25% of the public has been quite successful at misrepresenting their ideology to attract enough moronic one issue idealists and wards of the government to win elections.
> 
> This is a recipe for disaster that moderate (gun-loving?) liberals turn a blind eye to, because they think they are on the winning side and will share in the glory that the liberal elites have been enjoying, i.e. that guns will only be taken away from the ********. Thanks to the major media, Hollywood, and leftist college professors, the language has been successfully re-defined to a degree that about half of all new voters actually believe that socialistic policies can work, despite the ample history that shows they never have.
> 
> One can only hope that these so-called moderate liberals eventually do become as 'enlightened' as they think they already are. Or, failing that, we can still hope that conservatives and libertarians get together and think up some new labels for themselves, so they can run for election as something that has not yet had it's platform sawed out from under it with the Sol Alinski propaganda methods that the left has embraced whole-heartedly.


Precisely! They quote inaccurate statistics to make their case, which isn't based on safety. Gun control isn't about guns or safety! It is about control. If you truly wanted to reduce violent crime, then educate, train and hold accountable. Switzerland has the highest gun ownership per capita than any other country in the world, yet they have one of the lowest violent crime rates. They also have a very high income avg compared to the US, Autralia or the UK. This is accomplished by education, training and accountability, but liberals don't want that. They want control, and they don't care what they have to do to get it.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

GCBHM said:


> I have had the gun control discussion with several who just refuse to accept facts or truth. All they want is to restrict access to guns for law abiding citizens. I have to believe you have to have help to misunderstand the fact that blaming guns and penalizing law abiding citizens for the behavior of a few criminals is insane. You're not going to get guns off the streets, not ever. And you're not going to stop violent criminals by taking guns away from the law abiding element of society. Background checks do nothing to stop the criminals from getting guns b/c they do not get their guns from the local gun store. Anyone who thinks you can legislate and regulate violent crime out like this is simply daft.


Just take a look at Chicago for all the proof you need. Among the toughest gun laws in the country and also among the highest murder rates in the country. So as Mr. Spock would say, "logically, this means that tough gun laws result in an increase in murder rates, therefore less tough gun laws should result in a decrease in murder rates. It's hard to argue with logic, Captain."


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

RK3369 said:


> Just take a look at Chicago for all the proof you need. Among the toughest gun laws in the country and also among the highest murder rates in the country. So as Mr. Spock would say, "logically, this means that tough gun laws result in an increase in murder rates, therefore less tough gun laws should result in a decrease in murder rates. It's hard to argue with logic, Captain."


And then take a look at Detroit, which has had a 37% decrease in violent crime as the result of permits issued gonig up. A recent study shows that criminal behavior changes when CCW permits increase.


----------



## TAPnRACK (Jan 30, 2013)

Detroit's violent crime has moved out into the suburbs.... another reason Detroit's violent crime rate went down... it's moved out.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Probably b/c criminals behave differently when they know the people have the means of defense. Survival of the fittest means the predators prey on the weakest of the herd.


----------



## rustygun (Apr 8, 2013)

TAPnRACK said:


> Detroit's violent crime has moved out into the suburbs.... another reason Detroit's violent crime rate went down... it's moved out.


Got to bad even for the criminals. Nothing left to steal.


----------



## TAPnRACK (Jan 30, 2013)

Exactly, lol... hard to steal much from those who have nothing.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

SailDesign said:


> And people say this country isn't divided.... So are you guys Tea Potties, or just Right-wingnuts? (if we're going to start slanging)


So who's the one slinging names around??

No friend. Can't speak for others but to me, the only good socialist/communist is the one that lays on the ground and doesn't breath. I have no problem with those who claim liberalism as their preference as long as they don't interfere or change my right to do as I see fit. Heck, I used to be a liberal in my youth. Now I'm just a pretty strict Constitutionalist, which would make me a classic liberal like the Founders.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Being "liberal" got way off track several years ago, but then so has conservatism.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> Precisely! They quote inaccurate statistics to make their case,
> 
> <huge-ass snip>


I would argue that point, except that both sides are convinced they are right. I grew up in England, so I'm all fcuked up anyway. 

My state is not carry-friendly (so I can't anyway, which begs that question), but I have enough freedom to shoot when I want to, and to own mostly anything I like. I know that sounds like "FU - I've got mine" and in all truth it might be.

My objection to the NRA's tactics (not their goal - their tactics) is the whole "Climate of Fear" thing. WTF are they going to preach when it's not Obama in charge and the .gov STILL wants to limit gun rights? We all know that Cheney needs more gun control (that was a joke - weak, but a joke, guys!)
Yes, there are parts of the country where I'm sure ity is advisable to wear a gun. I don't live there, I don't plan on going there, and I'm happy that way - but I will NOT stand in the way of those who have to, and therefore want to. For a start, it is none of my business. 
I left one forum where it was put to me that if I didn't carry, then I was anti-2A and could simply FOAD as far as they were concerned. I did the FO but have no intention of the rest.  I just want to shoot and enjoy discussing guns. I am hoping that the title of this forum ("Handgun Information & Discussion Forum") which does specify 2A/Carry compliance will live up to it's name and allow nme to do that without having to prove at every opportunity that I'm not a false=-flagger (Yes, accused of that, too, as well as being old and having nothing to live for....)

So - I won't knock your like for carry (and may even ask questions) if you don't knock my lack of carry. Deal?


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

I agree with you on the tactics of the NRA, which is one reason I am not a member. The gov's whole agenda is to scare you into believing you need it. The Dems scare you by saying if you don't have them to tell you what's best for you and to give you everything you "need", you'll surely die! The GOP scares you by telling you that you need them to have a massive military and police state to protect you, otherwise you'll surely die! Nothing could be further from the truth, however. What we need is less gov, decentralize government, deregulate and put the power back into the hands of the people. Reduce gov by abolishing the depts of education, EPA, IRS, and DHS for starters, and stop all this foreign aid immediately. I could go on, but lets talk about guns.


----------



## TAPnRACK (Jan 30, 2013)

Sounds good to me, I got no issues with your choice not to carry... everyone is entitled to pursue their personal preference and still be an active member of this forum.


----------



## rustygun (Apr 8, 2013)

Yea, We should go back to talking about things that which we all agree. Glocks are great and .45 ACP is the only round that matters.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

rustygun said:


> Yea, We should go back to talking about things that which we all agree. Glocks are great and .45 ACP is the only round that matters.


Say whut? 

Dunno bout the Glock (never fired one, yet) but the .45 is good. Only one of those I've fired was a borrowed one, but it was good. For now, 380 is my largest calibre. Working my way up.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

SailDesign said:


> ...My state is not carry-friendly...


Rhode Island has very interesting concealed-carry laws.
According to state law, if you apply to the Attorney General's office for your carry permit, it's a "may issue" state. But, also according to state law, if you apply to your town, city, or county police for your permit, it's a "must issue" state.
However, some local police chiefs, Pawtucket's being an excellent example, will refuse to issue a carry permit, regardless of what state law says. One would have to sue the chief, to get him to issue a permit.
Furthermore, there seems to be no RI provision for issuance of an out-of-state license. When we visit our son's family, I am reduced to a folding knife and the cane with which I walk long distances. But both Providence and Pawtucket seem to be high-crime areas.



SailDesign said:


> ...but I have enough freedom to...own mostly anything I like...


Hmmm...
Maybe that's no longer true.
The RI state legislature has been working at passing some pretty restrictive new laws. For instance, it may no longer be possible for me to help our son buy either a repeating shotgun or a tube-magazine .22 rifle, to keep in his Pawtucket home. There may also now be some restrictive magazine-capacity laws applying to pistols, as well.
Also, it seems quite difficult to find someplace to shoot. It was hard enough to find a pistol range within a reasonable travel distance, but I have not been able to discover _any_ high-power rifle ranges, anywhere in RI.

Others who have been on this forum longer than you have read my description of the time that I needed my carry pistol, right here in my own home, right here on this peaceful little island.
People have said and written that they don't need a defensive weapon, when they're at home in their own quiet community. They question why I think that I need mine. My standard answer is, "Your crystal ball must work a lot better than mine does."
You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion and your own decision. It is not my place to question your opinions and decisions, in reference to your own use or non-use of defensive weapons. But I must say that your opinions and decisions on the subject differ widely from mine.

I consider myself to be a social liberal (note the lower-case "l") and a fiscal and governmental conservative (note the lower-case "c"). I suppose you could label me a Libertarian, even though I don't belong to any political party and I never vote a straight party ticket of any kind.
But I strongly decry the modern Progressive movement, which I consider to be a complete perversion of the true Progressive Movement of the early 1900s. Modern Progressives seem to me to be closer in philosophy to Fascists than to classic liberals.
I believe that many of the members here have a sort of knee-jerk reaction to the word "liberal" (or "Liberal"), seeing, instead of social liberality, that Fascist-style modern Progressive who, like Schumer, Pelosi, Feinstein, and Bloomberg, desires to control and direct society rather than allow liberty to take its course.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Rhode Island has very interesting concealed-carry laws.
> According to state law, if you apply to the Attorney General's office for your carry permit, it's a "may issue" state. But, also according to state law, if you apply to your town, city, or county police for your permit, it's a "must issue" state.
> However, some local police chiefs, Pawtucket's being an excellent example, will refuse to issue a carry permit, regardless of what state law says. One would have to sue the chief, to get him to issue a permit.
> Furthermore, there seems to be no RI provision for issuance of an out-of-state license. When we visit our son's family, I am reduced to a folding knife and the cane with which I walk long distances. But both Providence and Pawtucket seem to be high-crime areas.
> ...


Well said, Steve.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Rhode Island has very interesting concealed-carry laws.
> According to state law, if you apply to the Attorney General's office for your carry permit, it's a "may issue" state. But, also according to state law, if you apply to your town, city, or county police for your permit, it's a "must issue" state.
> However, some local police chiefs, Pawtucket's being an excellent example, will refuse to issue a carry permit, regardless of what state law says. One would have to sue the chief, to get him to issue a permit.
> Furthermore, there seems to be no RI provision for issuance of an out-of-state license. When we visit our son's family, I am reduced to a folding knife and the cane with which I walk long distances. But both Providence and Pawtucket seem to be high-crime areas.
> ...


Yeah - a lot of ^^^ that. 

My views are skewed by my upbringing in the UK - and I freely admit that I am all for nationalised medical coverage (not private insurance firms charging what they can get away with, but truly national health such as is enjoyed in the other 90% of the civilised world) This marks me as a Commie ion some places (been called that here, come to think) but actually reflects the fact that growing up in a single-parent home as a kid, the LAST thing we ever had to worry about was medical care. it was simply free, paid for out of taxes the same way public education is. I hope no-one here thinks we should all pay private schools' prices for our kids. So, Yes, I'm for all that sh!t.

On the carry business, I just don't see it for me. I don't carry a fire extinguisher in the car, or a Jaws-Of-Life although I do usually wear a life-jacket when sailing. If I had ever had cause to need one in my 59 years, I might feel differently.

RI's gun laws are working on being changed, that's sure. I'm not a "demonstration" kind of guy, but I write to my State Rep and make sure she knows my feelings. The fact that she's a close neighbor helps.

If you're looking for a place to shoot high-power rifle, yeah - sparse, especially with my non-NRA thing going. Pretty much anything can be shot at MidState Gun's range in Coventry (only 25yds, indoors, though) - memberships are hard to come by but you can "play it by ear" most days if you're not there in the evenings when the real crowds start. Nice indoor range, very pleasant folks. I use the RI DEM range in the summer - again, everything BUT centerfire rifle, but you can take any pistol your want out to 50 yds if you have the grip for it. Most are blowing large groups at 7 or 10 yards with giant 45's But once you've taken the range safety course, it's free as long as there's a spot. Buit of a hike from Pawtucket, maybe, so I'd suggest Coventry.

"Knee-jerk" reaction. Yeah - still got a few bruises.  But I heal and carry on.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Political views aside, you're welcome in this forum. At least by the majority in this thread, I feel safe to say. As I stated above, there are lots of changes I would make, but as long as you're content to live and let live, you're ok with me. 

I really do not think we should all have to pay the prices for private education or outrageous medical bills, but then the reason those prices are so out of hand is b/c of government intrusion. Nothing good comes from government intrusion. Nothing! We are a nation that has been regulated nearly to death, and it is all so that corrupt politicians and businessmen can pad their pockets and maintain control. What I hope is that people don't actually buy into the notion that taking guns off the street and away from law abiding citizens is actually the way to stop violence. Quite the contrary, it will initiate even more violence, and perpetrated by none other than the government. Just ask the Jews. Just ask the Japanese. Ask the Russians. Don't be fooled by those who spew the rhetoric of the non-violent majority. There are over 1.5 billion muslims in the world, and it is estimated that only 15% to 25% are violent radicals vowing to destroy all who do not convert. That comes to somewhere between 180 to 300 million people committed to killing those who oppose their views. That is a populace the size of the US. Think about that. What that should tell you is that the peaceful majority is irrelevent. If we don't stand for our rights, we will surely suffer the same fate as those pour souls I mentioned above. National healthcare...national education...national anything is not good. Private healthcare, private education, private capitalism is the only way to thrive and live free.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> Political views aside, you're welcome in this forum. At least by the majority in this thread, I feel safe to say. As I stated above, there are lots of changes I would make, but as long as you're content to live and let live, you're ok with me.
> 
> I really do not think we should all have to pay the prices for private education or outrageous medical bills, but then the reason those prices are so out of hand is b/c of government intrusion.
> 
> ...


On the first bit - cool. The world would be a really boring place if we all agreed about everything,. 

On the second bit I left in - I truly believe the medical bills are nothing to do with gub'mint intrusion - it's greed on the part of lawyers driving malpractice insurance through the roof (my wife works for a doctor...) and the insurance and pharma companies going after more and more profit. Try living in a country that has National Health - I'll bet you like it. Try imagining NEVER having to pay medical bills - no deductions, no limits, no pre-existing conditions BS. Just think about it - you don't have to sully your sensibilities by actually DOING it. 

For the last about private everything being the way to go - Fine, if you can afford it. On minimum wage? Fuggedaboudit!  No education, no healthcare, no food - but plenty of robbery....

Yes, we disagree. 

Now about those guns....


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> On the first bit - cool. The world would be a really boring place if we all agreed about everything,.
> 
> On the second bit I left in - I truly believe the medical bills are nothing to do with gub'mint intrusion - it's greed on the part of lawyers driving malpractice insurance through the roof (my wife works for a doctor...) and the insurance and pharma companies going after more and more profit. Try living in a country that has National Health - I'll bet you like it. Try imagining NEVER having to pay medical bills - no deductions, no limits, no pre-existing conditions BS. Just think about it - you don't have to sully your sensibilities by actually DOING it.
> 
> ...


Well, to be fair, I should let you know I lived in England for three years, and I hated the medical system there. I lived in Alconbury, and the local clinic was unsettling at best. The closest military hospital was an hour away at Lakenheath, and if I had any major medical problems, that is where I would have gone over the local clinic. The issue of corrumpt lawyers are made possible by the intrusion of corrupt government officials, but if the private sector was allowed to compete, prices would not be so crazy. Jobs would become more available, robbery would decrease, and the nation would thrive! Competition drives down prices, but the government has regulated and taxed business to death, which is why Obama just yesterday demanded "economic patriotism" (bullying) citing the companies mergering with overseas industry to avoid his idiotic, crippling tax structure is just wrong. Of course, I vehemently disagree, but about those guns...


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> Well, to be fair, I should let you know I lived in England for three years, and I hated the medical system there. I lived in Alconbury, and the local clinic was unsettling at best. The closest military hospital was an hour away at Lakenheath, and if I had any major medical problems, that is where I would have gone over the local clinic. The issue of corrumpt lawyers are made possible by the intrusion of corrupt government officials, but if the private sector was allowed to compete, prices would not be so crazy. Jobs would become more available, robbery would decrease, and the nation would thrive! Competition drives down prices, but the government has regulated and taxed business to death, which is why Obama just yesterday demanded "economic patriotism" (bullying) citing the companies mergering with overseas industry to avoid his idiotic, crippling tax structure is just wrong. Of course, I vehemently disagree, but about those guns...


Alconbury? Oh, you poor sap 

Yeah - some of the clinics are a bit off, but I find the same here.

On an entirely unpartisan note (although God knows it sounds like it) I shall be genuinely interested to see what happens if a Republican prez gets in, with a republican congress behind him. Heaven help you guys if taxes are raised, and gun controls increased - I'll be chuckling all over these forums...  (At the irony, not at the controls....)

Off to put the new wooden grips on my 84F - be good.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

You may well just see that, actually. The "establishment" is in business to maintain it's control. Have a good one!


----------

