Lawmaker pushing for statewide gun-crimes registry
»Play Video
OLYMPIA, Wash. -- A state lawmaker is pushing for a new gun-crimes registry to clamp down on crime.
With bipartisan support, Rep. Mike Hope, R-Lake Stevens, on Thursday introduced a bill that seeks to reduce gun violence by creating a statewide database. Much like the sex offender registry, those convicted of crimes involving guns would have to register on the criminal gun database.
But the owner of a Tacoma gun store has his doubts.
"I think it's a bad idea," said Kris Kindschuh, who says the most dangerous convicted criminals are monitored already. The gun shop owner says adding more laws won't make them comply.
"If you're committing a crime with a firearm, you should lose your gun rights for your lifetime, not four years," said Kindschuh. "You should already be registered with the officials."
Hope says under his bill, judges can require criminals to register twice a year for four years into the statewide database.
"That's a huge deterrent, and that's why we do it with sex offenders, too," he said.
Police will be able to quickly identify gun offenders and keep tabs on them after they are released back into the community.
"It gives law enforcement another tool, essentially, and I think that's what's going to help reduce gun violence," said Hope.
Hope is working to get a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee in the upcoming weeks.
With bipartisan support, Rep. Mike Hope, R-Lake Stevens, on Thursday introduced a bill that seeks to reduce gun violence by creating a statewide database. Much like the sex offender registry, those convicted of crimes involving guns would have to register on the criminal gun database.
But the owner of a Tacoma gun store has his doubts.
"I think it's a bad idea," said Kris Kindschuh, who says the most dangerous convicted criminals are monitored already. The gun shop owner says adding more laws won't make them comply.
"If you're committing a crime with a firearm, you should lose your gun rights for your lifetime, not four years," said Kindschuh. "You should already be registered with the officials."
Hope says under his bill, judges can require criminals to register twice a year for four years into the statewide database.
"That's a huge deterrent, and that's why we do it with sex offenders, too," he said.
Police will be able to quickly identify gun offenders and keep tabs on them after they are released back into the community.
"It gives law enforcement another tool, essentially, and I think that's what's going to help reduce gun violence," said Hope.
Hope is working to get a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee in the upcoming weeks.
This is just going to cost us more money for nothing.
 @Thepriest I works for sex offenders, I don't see why it wouldn't work to deter other crimes.
 @fumblefacedolt  @Thepriest How does this work for sex offenders?
 @fumblefacedolt  @Thepriest Since when is owning a gun a crime?
 @tufa23  @fumblefacedolt  @Thepriest They already have that info...
 @NW-Economist  @fumblefacedolt  @Thepriest when you're a felon, einstein...
WHAT IS NEEDED ????????????????
PROSECUTIONS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When a felon is caught with a gun, the FEDS should be prosecuting them HARD seriously.
Stop giving convicted felons caught with a gun 4 months in a county jail !!!!!
The system has the ABILITY to send a hardcore and serious message to felons who possess guns, but they don't have the will.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Exile
 @hardtowatchitfade wow.   all caps!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! multiple question marks????????????
Â
we are all so impressed.
We have a system that does this and the courts and cops have instant acces to it already.
The cops have this access in thier cars on thier MDT's and can run info any time, 24-7.
This is unneeded.
 @hardtowatchitfade Right, sure. That is why i9n full view of cameras during the buy back, people were buy guns from people right in front of the cops-perfectly legal and yet no background check.
Â
Can you be sure that no felon bought a gun that day"?
Â
The NRA has said the gun shows have a loop hole for private sales. Guy in booth id a dealer and must run a background check. The booth next to him is a private seller-does need to run background checks. Gee I wonder which table the felon will go to.
Â
I still believe people like you don't care who dies as long as you have a right to bear arms. The sad part, there is no effort on any ones part to take away the 2nd amendment.
Â
 @snoopy84 The flaw with your logic is this: all gun shows in the state of Washington are run by the Washington Arms Collectors. You have to be a member to buy or sell a firearm in the shows confines, the WAC requires background checks to be a member. So in short you guy in another booth theory is false. Outside the gun show is a different issue.
 @snoopy84  @hardtowatchitfade I agree the 'gun show loophole' allows for them to obtain a gun more easily. There are already laws on the books that if you sell a gun to someone who isn't supposed to own one, you can be prosecuted. That being said, this has nothing to do with the guns, it only registers the people. Owning a gun is a right by citizens, but not and inalienable right. It can be taken away. If you commit a crime or assault with a gun, they should take your rights away.Â
@Xirxious @snoopy84 @hardtowatchitfade Where is the evidence that felons are buying firearms at gun shows?????? From the data I can find small time thugs/criminals buy firearms on the "black market" which is not the same as a gun show. Show me data that ties a criminal use of a firearm to a gun show purchase (not a parking lot purchase). Many firearms are sold/traded at shows and are later stolen which starts the defineition of an illegal firearm. Many people have their perscription medicines stolen and just like firearms they should be held accountable since children are dying from perscriptions taken from home!
 @snoopy84  @hardtowatchitfade Yes, because that felon who did 2 years for tax evasion, and now has a family and home to protect, will NEVER need a gun to keep her kids safe from her violent ex.
 @RN1  @snoopy84  @hardtowatchitfade You can petition the courts for your gun rights back....follow the laws...pretty simple.
 @RN1  @snoopy84  @hardtowatchitfade she's a felon. You'd think she would have thought about her future gun rights before she stole from the government...
 @snoopy84  @hardtowatchitfade Hey, while you're at it better make a database for gasoline and fertilizer purchases and track all those buyers...
Â
what is wrong with you?
What is everyone up in arms about it? Are you protecting criminals? Besides it's weak weak weak. First off a judge has to require it as part of the sentence, secondly the database is only available to local law enforcement, and third the length of time on the registry is only 4 years. This has apparently worked in other states quite well. Personally i would love to know if a gun offender is living in my neighborhood. In face I would like to know of all the criminal history of all my neighbors be it sex offender, murder, robbery, etc. Don't see what we don't have that now.
 @fumblefacedolt It's called "mission creep." It start with then. then another small adjustment, then another minor change to the wording of the law, and in a few short steps, POOF, you have a gun-owner registry. It conditions people to be constantly asking for permission to do things, and to tell the government what they are doing. It trains people to be submissive and subservient subject, not free citizens. You must always consider how a law might be abused by people who do NOT have your best interests at heart, but only *their* own power and safety. The guy pushing this is a cop - of COURSE he wants more tools to go after the usual suspects, because all those mass shooters has such long and violent police histories.... well, they didn't actually, soooo...
 @RN1  @fumblefacedolt I'd also add that i'm sure the ACLU will fight this. They will claim the 'offender' has paid his debt to society and now is a free person. Tracking them would be against their rights. Now, if we sentenced them to 10+ years for any gun crime, we wouldn't NEED to track them. We would know where they always are, cell block C.
 @fumblefacedolt Court records are public record. You can check on criminal activity and credit history.
 @minniemouse  @fumblefacedolt all the registry does is requires a convicted felon to give their current address so that law enforcement can show up on their door step twice a year for four years as a deterrent to them committing another gun crime. Current address are not available online or in real time. Don't see why people are so against criminals being tracked for four years.
Mike Hope are you flippin serious? Once again BIGGER government, HUGE pricetag. First off criminal don't give a hoot what registry they are on, second look at the number of sexual offenders that are on the "registry" and DOP has "lost track of". This is just totally unbelievable! Thugs, Gangbangers, the mentally ill, and punks don't give a hoot about laws, rules, registries, limits or society. Holy poo, another idiot in Olympia.
 @Magicalwoman The sex offender registry works very well. So if you are so bent on protecting felon's right, then maybe your the i....................
@snoopy84, what world do you live in? Do you know how many PO's have lost track of their "clients". The registry doesn't work and if you believe it does, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
The state already has a registry! It's call criminal records, If you commit a felony no mater how small you lose your firearms for life! Quit spending money on gun control guns don't kill people bullets do! We need ammunition control! Felons that "made a mistake" will never put themselves and guns in the same place. Criminals will always find a gun and will use it. Make it harder for them to find ammunition.
 @wardog Not all felons lose their gun rights for life. They can petition the courts to get them back. There are some felonies that do not allow that such as murder, vehicular homicide. It has to be a Class A felony.  Â
Â
That said I don't think this new law would do much good. The police already have the tools needed to find these guys.
Let's put it this way...if you're using a firearm for things other than target shooting or self-defense, you're doing it wrong. Outside of the said use of a firearm, it is simply MIS-use and those that choose to do that are those that will never be free. Registering the criminally used firearm, as well as the offender is a paramount idea, and I think Mike Hope is on to something good, but not for the bad guys. :o}
TreeTop you're flying in trees too tall, you're losing air to your brain, just like Mike Hope. How am I going to get red meat in my freezer? Oh yeah golf club. This is an insane idea that will cost taxpayers thousands upon thousands of dollars AND one that we don't have the man power to enforce. We are cutting patrols and police presence now, are we all of a sudden going to have money to pay them to update, track and enforce this? NO! Not to mention thugs, gangbangers, the mentally ill and punks don't obey or give a hoot about laws, rules, registries, limits or society.
 @TreeTopFlyerDo you really think if someone use's a gun to kill some one they care about the penalty The guy that killed the firemen had killed his grandmother with a hammer. He should still be in jail. Who the hell let him out.
@Mike ..I'll bet he has a bad day every day...and that's precisely why I carry....and why I think everyone else who doesn't misuse firearms (or hammers) should too. Self-defense is the concept in my school. Evil zombies will always be in my neighborhood, at Safeway, at work, at school, Starbucks, at McDonalds, Dick's, at the mall, sitting in that POS vehicle next to me at the stop light, you name it....don't worry, I got this.
Punishment does not deter crime like this country thinks it does. It is not the end all solution. It's one piece of the puzzle, yet it's the only one we focus on. More and more restrictions doesn't change any society for the better. I don't like where this is headed.
this i a good idea what would be even better would be to lose your right to ever have a firearm or be around one or even ammo for life.
 @Exiled_Patriot Thats what is felon is,you can look them up on the net
Not a bad idea. Also, first gun offense should have mandatory 5 years tacked on the sentence. Second, 10 years. Third, bye bye.
Â
But sex offender registries dont prevent sex offenders from repeating thier crimes. It does nothing to prevent crime. By this theory, they should just have ALL felons reigster so we know where they all are so we can cocoon ourselves in our homes and never leave, so we are safe.
Apparently I am one of the few. I think this is a good step in the right direction. While an offender may be 'in the system' they are not made openly public. You can search the sex offender registry and see where reported sex offenders are in comparison to where you live. So too should gun offences. Make it easy and force them to almost advertise where they live and what they've been found guilty of. The next step is better background checks and waiting period policies for ANY transfer of a firearm. Gun sales, garage sales, or brick and mortar shops, should all comply by the same rules. Make it more difficult for mentally unstable individuals to obtain a firearm. They also need to ban assault weapons. What's an assault weapon? Golly, if it looks like a military issue rifle, has a high capacity magazine, and is semiautomatic, it's an assault weapon. You wanna play with that equipment, join up. Those things do not need to be in the hands of every tool gun nut. Don't give me that rubbish about infringing on your 2nd amendment rights as it's not. You can and should still be able to have a non-automatic rifle for hunting or semi automatic pistols for whatever makes you feel more endowed. That's fine. But the 2nd amendment if you read it properly says that citizens are also part of the military and as such need to have arms to come to the defense of the new nation. That was pre-military in this country. Now that we have these nifty, new fangled organizations like the Navy, the Marines, the Army, and the Air Force, who have all the guns and toys you could ever ask for to blow sh* up with, the 2nd amendment doesn't exactly translate to modern times. Especially considering it was written long before semiautomatic assault rifles even existed. The incessant cries for protecting the 2nd amendment are nothing more than a group of selfish, whiny, self serving people who would rather serve their own selfishness than to admit that responsibility and restraint is the course to take. Think about this, almost every gun in the hands of those who shouldn't have them started out as a legitimately owned firearm. To resolve the problems with guns within our society, the source of said problem is the same people fighting for the supposed self entitled 'right' to own an assault rifle.
Â
Don't like it? Tough. I'm entitled to my opinion just as much as the rest. The only difference being is I am willing enough to recognize what the problem really is and am willing to find a VIABLE solution.
@what? I agree we must find a VIABLE solution, to bad you didn't suggest one. Increasing gun restrictions only keeps guns out of the hands of the law abiding citizen. Remember assault rifles are automatic. Assault "Style" rifles are one pull of the trigger one bullet. There are a lot of different rifles that are semi-automatic they just don't look like an assault rifle, So we band a gun on it looks and not it function. More crimes are committed with hand guns rather than rifles, so should we band every semi-automatic hand gun? The goal is to keep guns (rifles and hand gun) out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable. A registry of gun criminal available to the public is like tattooing a GC on the forehead of criminals, would this really keep guns out of their position. We need to put the burden of not possessing a gun on the criminal not the law bidders. What about surprise searches of convicted gun criminals homes, cars, persons? O by the way the shooting in Newtown did not involve a rifle. All those shot were shot with hand guns. The "Assault style" rifle was in the car and never taken into the school.  Â
 @dankingston I put forth several suggestions and not matter your distaste for it, they are perfectly viable.Â
Â
I have met and been friends with many people over the years who hunt. They have all agreed that if you don't get your prey in the first shot, you are causing the animal to suffer. That said, there is no need to hunt with semi-automatic rifles. Period. Military look alike or not. You feel the need for a semi auto, look into a pistol. Your stance of a.w. vs a.w. style is nothing but semantics. You agree with me in the sense that you don't want to admit it. Think of it this way, if something sounds like a duck, has feathers, flies and swims, even leaves duck poo, it certainly isn't the llama you're trying to parade around. Next I am not talking about taking guns away but about limiting the type of guns available to the general public. I'd even be willing to consider that semi automatic rifles be made available on a case by case basis. If you are in law enforcement or can demonstrate a legitimate need for them, then sure why not. But keep in mind, throwing a tantrum like a 3 year old in the cereal aisle screaming "I want it I want it I want it" isn't a legitimate reason.
Â
You brought up the very basis of this discussion in this statement: "The goal is to keep guns (rifles and hand gun) out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable." You know what? You're absolutely right. But let's look a bit deeper into the start of the problem. Almost all of the guns that get into the hands of people who should not have them were obtained legally. That means some gun nut looses, get's it stolen, sells, or gives away their legally obtained gun to someone who shouldn't have it. That easy and it's on the street. Yet people push so hard against the mere suggestion that a background check be performed at any transfer of ownership of a firearm?!? That a mental health eval is somehow too difficult to perform? What about an annual license? How do you think that'd fly? If I can drive a car just fine today, but in another 40 years I won't be able to do so safely, don't you think the same holds true with gun ownership?Â
Â
See the issue here is this. Those who have guns and think their belief in the 2nd amendment enables them to have a howitzer in the backyard will actively and rabidly fight any proposed gun control measure. The fact is, we need an open dialogue. We need to have an open discussion. Why? Because the policies and procedures currently in place are not working. If we don't completely and objectively analyze the situation, we will never be able to put forth a solution that isn't just viable but it is effective. But than again, I already know what the response is, I'm wrong. But then that's just because I don't agree with you now isn't it.
@RN1 @what? Thank you for the open dialog, this is what Mike Hope needs to hear, At this time in my life I don't possess any guns.. I lost that right 11 years ago -- I hope to have the honor of owning guns again next years, I have to wait 12 years. My interest is Black-powder shooting both hunting and re-enactments. I tried bow hunting and my old body just can't pull the bow. Never owned a non-black hand gun and only modern rifle I owned was a lever action 22 manufactured about 1965. Don't plan on buying any semi-automatic guns. I have over 32 years of military service -- I guess I though my service was to protect the rights of citizens to own guns. I see gun control as the government creep of over authority. Since assault weapons are dangerous in the wrong hands -- maybe registration of "Assault weapons" by law abiding citizens will keep them out of the hands of criminals -- My scrap with the law did not involve the use of a gun. I ashamed of my actions and never again do anything that will strip me of my civil rights.
 @what?  @dankingston Why do you confused NEED with RIGHT? Why do you assume that hunting guns are not suitable for self-defense, and vice-versa? Why do you assume "hunting" only covers deer-sized animals? Why do you assume no hunters are handicapped, and may have difficulty working a manual-action arm (BTW, I hunt with a handicapped deer hunter most years)? Why do you keep assuming that your confusion of the terms "assault RIFLE" and "assault WEAPON", and other misuse of proper terminology in the debate is silly, when sloppy language use is quite directly related to sloppy thinking and ignorance? why do you assume we are not having an open dialogue; pro-gunners are usually honest, and the anti-gunners version of "compromise" usually amounts to only demanding part of their eventual goal now, the rest later. Where is YOUR compromise?
 @what? The founding fathers also did not see a lot of other technological advancements that we have. When it come to freedom of speech or freedom of press, I am sure they didn't see newspapers, internet, televisions, ETC. That does not mean we don't get to utilize those things.
Â
If you don't want to own a gun "assault Style" or not, then don't own one. Those of us that are law abiding, and safe gun owners, have a right to own what we feel we want, or is necessary.
Â
Whatever reason we do or not own a weapon is a right that we have in this still very great nation.
 @Ventura66 I disagree. Newspapers existed at the time of the American revolution. Free speech was very important in any context of the time, just as it is today. Then, free speech covered everything from standing outside the capitol holding a protest sign and speaking your mind in the press. Be it a large newspaper or a small flyer. So we have more outlets of free speech, that does not limit free speech in any way shape or form and is completely within the context of the right to free speech within the constitution.
Â
Again, if you read the 2nd amendment in it's entirety, it clearly states that the population is also the militia. This is pre-army, pre-navy, pre-air force, and pre-marines. This dealt with single shot rifles, that then took time to reload before they could be fired again, this was about single shot pistols that too, took time to cycle and fire again. This was about a people who were called on to defend their nation. All that speaks to the armed forces we have today. Is Jim Bob Hick going to pass the military physical and head off to the sandbox in the middle east because his country is in need or is he too busy working his way through a six pack and cackling about "how funny it look" to blow that can of spaghetti o's off the fence post with his AK? How many weekend wanna be warriors do we have walking around packing that shouldn't be allowed out in public unsupervised? Sure they passed their waiting period and background check. But again, most guns on the streets and in the hands of those who shouldn't have them started out as a legally owned firearm. A legally purchased firearm. And you don't think that even that needs better regulation?
Â
"Those of us that are law abiding, and safe gun owners, have a right to own what we feel we want, or is necessary."
Â
Wrong wrong wrongity wrong. That logic can justify having a howitzer on the commuter car and a missile silo in the backyard. An escalating arms race isn't the solution here in any way shape or form. More guns on the streets huh? More guns in the hands of people willing to defend themselves huh? Do you possibly have a clue what that is going to result in? More shoot outs in public places. More innocent people caught in the crossfire. That is not the answer. Better regulation is, and no matter how you choose to spin it, having assault rifles in the hands of civilians isn't the right decision.
 @what?  @Ventura66Â
You have all the N.P.R. talking points down. Again you blather on a lot about nothing. By making "assault rifles" illegal, who is going to take those guns? The laws that we have on the books would work a lot better if we had the resources to enforce them.
Â
You can read whatever you want into the second amendment. The fact is, whether you like it or not, is that the people have a right to own and bear arms.
Â
I also noticed your comments on owning bazookas and so forth. I believe those are already banned. Please use reasonable arguments. You also like to state that you have a right to your opinion. So does everyone else, get use to the fact that in the course of your life, people will disagree with you.
Â
Again, if you do not like weapons, guns, knives, ETC, do not own them. All other law abiding citizens who choose to do not need to be judged by you.
@Ventura66 I think you may have a problem with reading as I never said or even suggested any of the things you stated there. Take guns away? Nope. You apparently need me to repeat myself. I said make guns more difficult to obtain. Track individual weapons. Mandate background checks, psyche exams, and waiting periods for every firearm sold. Last, but certainly not least, assault weapons should not be available to the general public.
Â
It's not about eliminating weapons that people find scary. Even a simple slingshot is 'scary' in the hands of an 1diot. Any weapon is 'scary' in the hands of someone who should never have it. So what exactly am I talking about? Assault weapons. Semi-automatic rifles, high capacity magazines. Don't give me the bull of 'it's a look alike'. Yeah I know that however it is every bit as deadly and capable as the guns they are patterned after.
Â
So here's the foundation of all this debate:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Â
So think about it. You are not in a millitia unless you're in the armed forces. That's the cold hard truth. You call the white house and tell them you're going to declare war on whatever country and see what they tell you. The armed forces handles the safety and security of the country. Next, the general public, or in the context of the 2nd amendment, the millitia, is anything BUT regulated. If everyone were 'well regulated' in regards to firearms, we would not have the shootings, accidental or otherwise, that we see everyday. Â
 @what?  @Ventura66Â
You have a lot of cut and paste arguments. You clearly have your own political opinions on this issue, mostly incorrect however. I am beginning to doubt that you have a lot of life experience judging from your rambling statements.
Â
Even if this government were to take your spin on this and outlaw all of those weapons you deem scary or unnecessary, who is going to take the weapons from these people? You? I don't think so. And don't tell me that the Police will either. Not only would that not be cost effective, it would put a lot of added danger on law enforcement as well.
Â
And before you start driveling on about how it is their job, I have been employed in law enforcement for over twenty two years and the greater majority of us support the second amendment.
Â
Most people feel the second amendment is a right that shall not be infringed. Anti-gun nuts like you need to quit putting your spin on it, because the people do believe the right to own and bear arms.
 @what?  @Ventura66 Look at US Code, Title 10, Sections 311.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
The militia includes the average guy-on-the-street, and it's clear that the founders intended it to be a CHECK on governmental powers.
Your opinion of gun owners is obviously very low, and your caricature of them puts your stereotyping and bigotry out there for all to see. Your claims of "shootouts in the streets is made *every time* by anti-gun bigots when relaxing gun laws is proposed, and it *fails to come to pass every single time." YOU are shown wrong by the many examples of history.
Besides, why do you dislike women so much? Many of them have small hands (so a pistol-grip is more comfortable), are smaller in stature (so a collapsible stock makes it fit them better), are more recoil sensitive (so the moderate power of a cartridge like the .223 is very appropriate), are more likely to be attacked in their home (so the reduced over-penetration of the .223 cartridge is appropriate), and are less interested in practicing (to the increased ease-of-aiming of a compact rifle), and these fact makes an AR-style rifle the BEST choice for many people.
Essentially, your ignorance of the facts gives you the arrogance to assume you are able to make a better choice for others then they can for themselves, sort of like many 17-year-old I see in the classroom who know everything already, or politicians who simply want CONTROL (or, well, laws, anyway).
 @what? Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, and you have the right to express yourself. And I have the right to tell you that what you say sound very similar to the Nazi Party said in Germany in the 1930, including "if you want guns, join the army" I also must remind you that gun ownership is a specifically enumerated constitutional right - are there any others you'd like to require people to ask government approval to exercise? And you DO realize, don't you, that the idea of a "right" is that you *don't have to ask permission*.
The place you seek, full of reasonable solutions to all these problems, is called a cage run by the state, where you do what they tell you to do, and in exchange they will give you what they think you should have.
 @RN1 For what it's worth, I really think you ought to go back and give my comment another look. I never mentioned any of what you've suggested. With your logic, one could attempt to justify owning a battleship to take to Seafair, a howitzer for the daily commute, and a missile silo in the backyard. I've never even remotely suggested that we as Americans give up our right to own firearms. I am however proposing that we limit what kinds of firearms the general public has access to AND changing the conditions under which they are bought, sold, and tracked. That's all. But then I suspect that I'm wasting my time as I'm already wrong because I disagree with your so called right to own a bazooka if your little heart so desires...
 @RN1
 Wrong. I said if you want certain types of guns you can join the military.Â
 @what? Well stated!
 @what? Go ahead and search the sex offender registry in your neighborhood. Depending on where you live there are probably 50-100 and you are going to be lucky to see 25 of them. They are always giving them PV violations for failure to register...let them out and pull them in a couple of months later and it is repeated and repeated. It doesn't work, there isn't anyway that the police have time to babysit these people. And law abiding gun owners should not be punished. The criminals who offended with guns are already in the data base
 @minniemouse
 Some regulation gets some, no relation won't get any. Remember elementary school? In some cases all it took was one kid to mess things up for the rest of the class.Â
@minniemouse So you're saying you're ok with the status quo and you feel there is no need to do anything and there is no problem?
 @what? That's called life.....nothing is ever going to be perfect so people have to accept that or be little owned minnions. (sp)?
Â
Â
And thats why I carry.