Otis Nice Posted November 2, 2021 Report Share Posted November 2, 2021 I suppose this could be discussed here as well and not just in the political thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted November 2, 2021 Report Share Posted November 2, 2021 this is a better article: https://www.10tv.com/article/news/politics/house-committee-passes-bill-allowing-for-concealed-carry-of-guns-without-training/530-2319005a-deb3-4db8-bca7-b27928cc8b19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otis Nice Posted November 2, 2021 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2021 this is a better article: https://www.10tv.com/article/news/politics/house-committee-passes-bill-allowing-for-concealed-carry-of-guns-without-training/530-2319005a-deb3-4db8-bca7-b27928cc8b19 Just got done reading it and I agree. I had just hopped on FB real quick while taking a brief break from working and saw that so I used that one. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace1647545504 Posted November 2, 2021 Report Share Posted November 2, 2021 Well we know the bad guys have guns, and the current ccw licensing is a bit of a joke. Take an 8 hour class shoot a little in it..watch some movies and take an open book test. When I took my test, we went around the room read the questions then gave our answer..there was one guy who could barely read but passed his test. How many people actually go out and shoot after they get their permit? Then you've got idiots like baldwin pointing and shooting a gun without checking it, that alone should be enough to put this bill to rest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted November 2, 2021 Report Share Posted November 2, 2021 Well we know the bad guys have guns, and the current ccw licensing is a bit of a joke. Take an 8 hour class shoot a little in it..watch some movies and take an open book test. When I took my test, we went around the room read the questions then gave our answer..there was one guy who could barely read but passed his test. and yet somehow 3900 people failed to pass or had their CCW revoked, so what you are saying is, the CCW permit needs stronger controls and not weaker? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace1647545504 Posted November 2, 2021 Report Share Posted November 2, 2021 more control won't help...my 1st statement is the bad guys already have guns..so what we need is more criminals in jail..oh wait defund the police and talk the criminals out of doing what they are doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted November 2, 2021 Report Share Posted November 2, 2021 more control won't help.. the numbers don't support this statement https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23510/w23510.pdf you said the CCW course was a bit of a joke, that statement underlies that if it were not a joke it would be effective - so what would make it not a joke for you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Cranium Posted November 3, 2021 Report Share Posted November 3, 2021 Well we know the bad guys have guns, and the current ccw licensing is a bit of a joke. Take an 8 hour class shoot a little in it..watch some movies and take an open book test. When I took my test, we went around the room read the questions then gave our answer..there was one guy who could barely read but passed his test. How many people actually go out and shoot after they get their permit? Then you've got idiots like baldwin pointing and shooting a gun without checking it, that alone should be enough to put this bill to rest. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but it sounds like we agree in part on some things. There are people out there that did not grow up around guns and have no idea how to be a responsible gun owner. The 12 hour class isn't much, but it's something. Something is better than nothing. I don't know how comfortable I am with literally anyone being allowed to carry with nothing behind it. It may sound odd me being a teacher and all, but the guy who could barely read still passed the test. It's not a reading test, it's a firearms safety test. If the dude knows the correct answers, then he knows the correct answers. What might sound odd is I'm not worried about the criminals. We all know they have guns, and will continue to have guns regardless of any laws enacted. Me worrying about them is a waste of time. Lets teach people how to properly handle a firearm and how to use them safely. We don't let people drive without training, carrying without proof of basic knowledge falls into the same category for me. Also, any particular reason we're discussing this in the boat crew part of the site? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojoe Posted November 3, 2021 Report Share Posted November 3, 2021 I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but it sounds like we agree in part on some things. There are people out there that did not grow up around guns and have no idea how to be a responsible gun owner. The 12 hour class isn't much, but it's something. Something is better than nothing. I don't know how comfortable I am with literally anyone being allowed to carry with nothing behind it. It may sound odd me being a teacher and all, but the guy who could barely read still passed the test. It's not a reading test, it's a firearms safety test. If the dude knows the correct answers, then he knows the correct answers. What might sound odd is I'm not worried about the criminals. We all know they have guns, and will continue to have guns regardless of any laws enacted. Me worrying about them is a waste of time. Lets teach people how to properly handle a firearm and how to use them safely. We don't let people drive without training, carrying without proof of basic knowledge falls into the same category for me. Also, any particular reason we're discussing this in the boat crew part of the site? Moved this to the Gun Crew. I'm sure it was just a mistake in picking from the drop down where to post it. It is a 8 hour course now. I still teach a 12 hour and I would teach a 16 hour, but no one is going to take a class that long. The requirement of taking a CCW class is a direct violation of the second amendment. It infringes the right to carry a handgun without taking that class , passing, and doing all the paperwork. We are not a society that has the upbringing of handling firearms that we once were. Our individual level of responsibility and attention to detail is really low when it comes to motor skill events. I say this from training new soldier for more than twenty years, not just teaching this class. This is a direct reflection of our lack of being physically active, poor health and not taking care of ourselves as we continue to find an easier way to do everything or have it done for us. Many people I have trained do not get their CCW. They complete the class and realize they just wanted to have a foundation of knowledge with a firearm with home defense in mind. They simply want to feel comfortable and have a structured introduction or refresher on what to do with a firearm. They want to be talked through having the mindset of what to do in an act of violence. I have taught more personnel training classes in 3 hour blocks over the last 5 years than CCW classes. I understand that is just me and not all who provide weapons training. But I feel this gives me a good perspective to voice how people are with CCW and firearms. I told a young lady in my last class that I would not charge her for her my training, if she promised to spend the money on a jiu jitsu classes for a month. She declined and paid me. I do not see people willing to do more than the bare minimum. Every one can carry without training. There are concerns to this. Guns are going to be left in the restroom, changing room and many other places, more so than they already are. That would not be fixed by taking a CCW class, it's just how people are. But it will make the news and they will make it what they want for ratings and to stir people up. There will be accidental discharges and injuries, these will make the news to and they will spin it. Anti gun folks will push their agenda and we will be fighting for gun rights just as hard, if not harder the whole time. No changing that. This topic is forever. There are many other ongoing factors and fights to be had with this. In the end; the more populated an area is, the more problems we will see with people and guns. Familiarization should be done early on in life for good habits to be established. this needs to be followed with ongoing experience with firearms. This falls on the parents. More and more parents themselves are not and do not want to have anything to do with guns. Even those who once were around guns make mistakes. I have seem a former military person load rounds backwards in a magazine. They had spent a lot of time in their younger days around guns and training. Handling weapons is a perishable skill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted November 3, 2021 Report Share Posted November 3, 2021 I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but it sounds like we agree in part on some things. There are people out there that did not grow up around guns and have no idea how to be a responsible gun owner. The 12 hour class isn't much, but it's something. Something is better than nothing. I don't know how comfortable I am with literally anyone being allowed to carry with nothing behind it. I feel like you and I are better aligned on this than you and Mace. His position is clear, he would rather there be nothing than something while I agree something is better than nothing. It may sound odd me being a teacher and all, but the guy who could barely read still passed the test. It's not a reading test, it's a firearms safety test. If the dude knows the correct answers, then he knows the correct answers. I can't argue with this either, and frankly I agree - proficiency is proficiency, and if reading is not necessary to be proficient then there isn't an issue. But do you think reading should be a necessary part of proficiency? What might sound odd is I'm not worried about the criminals. We all know they have guns, and will continue to have guns regardless of any laws enacted. Me worrying about them is a waste of time. Lets teach people how to properly handle a firearm and how to use them safely. We don't let people drive without training, carrying without proof of basic knowledge falls into the same category for me. I'm not saying you should worry about the criminals, but there is some relevancy that doesn't come into this conversation that often but should: How do the criminals get guns? Legal owner carelessness plays a big part in how criminals get gun, and with an increase in the number of weapons being carried you are just naturally going to see an increase in the number of weapons that legal owners lose to criminals, even if the rate doesn't change. I think this further supports the idea that people need training for how to handle a firearm and use them safely, which includes how to carry one so that one doesn't "walk out of" a jacket pocket or purse and into a criminal's hand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted November 3, 2021 Report Share Posted November 3, 2021 The requirement of taking a CCW class is a direct violation of the second amendment. It infringes the right to carry a handgun without taking that class , passing, and doing all the paperwork. This is wishful thinking on your part, or rather it is your opinion of how you think things should be not a statement of fact about the law. The reality is that the requirement of taking a CCW class is not a direct violation of the second amendment and you will not find any previous jurisprudence, holding, statute, or any binding legal document that will support this at all. Even the 2008 supreme court case Dc vs Heller, which establishes the right to keep and bear arms for self defense, recognizes that states have a right to regulate firearms so long as it is not a de facto ban, which a CCW is clearly not. Joe, you are a smart guy, and you teach gun safety. I really wish you wouldn't spread NRA propaganda like this because it is counterproductive the the actual conversation. Just because this is how you want it to be, doesn't make it true, and taking a hardline opinion means you aren't really coming to the gun control conversation with intellectual honesty. We are not a society that has the upbringing of handling firearms that we once were. Our individual level of responsibility and attention to detail is really low when it comes to motor skill events. I say this from training new soldier for more than twenty years, not just teaching this class. This is a direct reflection of our lack of being physically active, poor health and not taking care of ourselves as we continue to find an easier way to do everything or have it done for us. I don't know that this country ever really was a society that had the widespread upbringing and handling of firearms. One of the reasons the NRA was founded in the first place was because the majority of Union Civil War soldiers didn't have experience or proficiency in firearms. The old fashioned form of gun control is really that firearms were way more expensive in the 1700 and 1800's, esp. in the American colonies where most had to be imported from England/Europe. Most firearms were shared tools of the family in the way a plow or a working head of livestock were. It wasn't until the second American industrial revolution (1870-1914) that manufacturing caught up and firearms became cheaper and plentiful. Many people I have trained do not get their CCW. They complete the class and realize they just wanted to have a foundation of knowledge with a firearm with home defense in mind. They simply want to feel comfortable and have a structured introduction or refresher on what to do with a firearm. They want to be talked through having the mindset of what to do in an act of violence. I have taught more personnel training classes in 3 hour blocks over the last 5 years than CCW classes. I understand that is just me and not all who provide weapons training. But I feel this gives me a good perspective to voice how people are with CCW and firearms. I told a young lady in my last class that I would not charge her for her my training, if she promised to spend the money on a jiu jitsu classes for a month. She declined and paid me. I do not see people willing to do more than the bare minimum. How many would have taken the CCW class if it wasn't required though. All the rest of this stuff is fantastic though. keep up the good work. Every one can carry without training. There are concerns to this. Guns are going to be left in the restroom, changing room and many other places, more so than they already are. That would not be fixed by taking a CCW class, it's just how people are. Right, but maybe that's a shortcoming of the CCW class curriculum itself, and one that isn't solved by doing nothing and taking away what little training there is? In the end; the more populated an area is, the more problems we will see with people and guns. Familiarization should be done early on in life for good habits to be established. this needs to be followed with ongoing experience with firearms. Agree 100% This falls on the parents. More and more parents themselves are not and do not want to have anything to do with guns. Even those who once were around guns make mistakes. I have seem a former military person load rounds backwards in a magazine. They had spent a lot of time in their younger days around guns and training. Handling weapons is a perishable skill. No, it falls on everyone in society, not just the "parents". Saying "parents should" and then doing nothing isn't going to solve any of these problems. If you genuinely think people should have training and familiarity, and I am pretty sure you do, then make it a requirement though licensing. It's not a hard concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furloaf Posted November 3, 2021 Report Share Posted November 3, 2021 Would requiring an 8 hour class before getting an abortion be okay? Could throw this argument at many things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted November 3, 2021 Report Share Posted November 3, 2021 Would requiring an 8 hour class before getting an abortion be okay? Could throw this argument at many things. a) I can't imagine the mental gymnastics required for you to see guns and abortions as equal things, but b) 33 states require counseling prior to an abortion, and the majority of those require a 24 hour waiting period between counseling and the procedure. so yeah, I guess it is "okay" since 33 is a majority of states. Also this is in addition to most high school students in American getting sex education as part of their school curriculum (which is way way way more than 8 hours). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furloaf Posted November 3, 2021 Report Share Posted November 3, 2021 a) I can't imagine the mental gymnastics required for you to see guns and abortions as equal things, but b) 33 states require counseling prior to an abortion, and the majority of those require a 24 hour waiting period between counseling and the procedure. so yeah, I guess it is "okay" since 33 is a majority of states. Also this is in addition to most high school students in American getting sex education as part of their school curriculum (which is way way way more than 8 hours). a) rights denied or infringed upon. One being encoded directly in the Constitution, the other not I'd be okay with basic firearm knowledge\safety being taught in high school or elementary also. Doesn't have to be hands on. Just here's how they operate, they're dangerous, what to do if you find one, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ODoyle Posted November 3, 2021 Report Share Posted November 3, 2021 most high school students in American getting sex education as part of their school curriculum (which is way way way more than 8 hours). When I was in school it was 1 period - 45 minutes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Bastard Posted November 3, 2021 Report Share Posted November 3, 2021 I'd be okay with basic firearm knowledge\safety being taught in high school or elementary also. Doesn't have to be hands on. Just here's how they operate, they're dangerous, what to do if you find one, etc. I feel like this wouldn't be a bad idea regardless, so long as it is someone with actual firearms experience and not just someone teaching what they read in a book (just my opinion). As far as people here worried about those untrained carrying, as Joe pointed out they have the option to open carry now in the state of Ohio. Do we think more people would start carrying because they can do it concealed now? Honest question. I know some would, but (again, just my opinion) I don't think too many would go buy a gun to carry just because they can now. Also people who already own guns that don't currently have a ccw may carry as well, but I would like to think that a majority of gun owners have some experience handling guns, and hopefully a little common sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted November 3, 2021 Report Share Posted November 3, 2021 When I was in school it was 1 period - 45 minutes. how many days per week? How many weeks per semester? nobody said it had to be 8 hours all at once. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted November 3, 2021 Report Share Posted November 3, 2021 As far as people here worried about those untrained carrying, as Joe pointed out they have the option to open carry now in the state of Ohio. Do we think more people would start carrying because they can do it concealed now? Honest question. I know some would, but (again, just my opinion) I don't think too many would go buy a gun to carry just because they can now. Open carry has limitations in that it's visible. Maybe there might be a small bump in new people carrying that wouldn't before, but I think the larger concern is that you may end up with more firearms in places where they really shouldn't be and not be held by as responsible people. There are plenty of places that don't allow firearms on their premises and if you walk in with a visible firearm they may ask you to leave. If it is concealed, how are they going to know to enforce their policy? This brings up another interesting question: If you bring a firearm into a store that prohibits it, you are technically trespassing which is a crime. The argument is there that there will be an increase of non-violent crime directly related to this law. How are we supposed to treat these people? They are technically criminals committing a gun related crime, but are they not the same as someone who holds up a liquor store. This is why I find the conversation by "constitutional carry" advocates disingenuous because they don't see this as a crime and they don't see these people as criminals - they think it is perfectly ok to violate the personal individual liberty of the premises owner just because they want to, and I can't buy into that. Also people who already own guns that don't currently have a ccw may carry as well, but I would like to think that a majority of gun owners have some experience handling guns, and hopefully a little common sense. fair point, but remember any group is only as good as it's least common denominator. You want to raise the bar of the least common denominator one sure fire way is to make a factor of the group conditional on license and training. But let me ask this - what about the future state? Sure the change goes into effect now and you have owners who have had to be responsible and in some cases have training, but what about the kids who turn 18 a year from now and don't have that training? That's the problem with this type of deregulation as time goes on the number of less responsible, less savvy, and less experienced owners are going to enter the group until they outnumber those who are responsible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
99FLHRCI Posted November 3, 2021 Report Share Posted November 3, 2021 how many days per week? How many weeks per semester? nobody said it had to be 8 hours all at once. My school was inline with what O'Doyle stated. It was 1 period - 45 minutes... that's it. Not 1 period every day, every semester, etc. It was a very short part of human biology. My school was more worried about every minority group had their own club, sports, teaching to the test, etc. Since there is no state test, license, etc. they didn't spend much time on it. b) 33 states require counseling prior to an abortion, and the majority of those require a 24 hour waiting period between counseling and the procedure. so yeah, I guess it is "okay" since 33 is a majority of states. How many of those states require a license to get one? A test? 8 hours of counseling and a proficiency test? From what I read, many of them are just a requirement to provide the information. Much like they are required to provide HIPAA information. You are not required to accept them, read them, comprehend them. Some of them don't even have to be given in person. Basically it becomes like a Terms of Service agreement... scroll to the bottom, check a box, move on. This is wishful thinking on your part, or rather it is your opinion of how you think things should be not a statement of fact about the law. The reality is that the requirement of taking a CCW class is not a direct violation of the second amendment and you will not find any previous jurisprudence, holding, statute, or any binding legal document that will support this at all. Even the 2008 supreme court case Dc vs Heller, which establishes the right to keep and bear arms for self defense, recognizes that states have a right to regulate firearms so long as it is not a de facto ban, which a CCW is clearly not. Please explain how making a financial requirement, testing, time, travel, licensing, etc requirement does not constitute an infringement. You have to pay a fee to take the class. You have to pay a fee to get your picture taken. You have to pay a fee for the application. You have to pay for the picture again every 5 years. You have to pay for the application again every 5 years. You have to pass the test (which is essentially pointless). Most people that work a 9-5 have to take time off work to meet the limited schedule that applying is allowed. You have to make your way to one location per county or surrounding county. All this talk about voter ID laws and how hard it is to get a license, the cost, difficulty getting to those sites and how it infringes on a constitutional right equally apply to the constitutional right to own and BEAR arms. There is a reason it is called constitutional carry. As far as DC vs Heller, CCW depending how it is enacted is a de facto ban. Hence why areas like Illinois have such low CCW rates and why there is a case right now in front of the Supreme Court challenging New York's restrictive law (similar to 7 other states). It may sound odd me being a teacher and all, but the guy who could barely read still passed the test. It's not a reading test, it's a firearms safety test. If the dude knows the correct answers, then he knows the correct answers. I think the fact that the one guy could barely read is detracting from the point. From the sounds of what he is saying (and what I have experienced both times I took the class) the instructor either reads the question and everyone says the answer out loud or it goes around the room with one person reading and answering out load and everyone stating agreed or the correct answer. In other words it is not a test, it is a can you circle the letter that everyone says exercise. How do the criminals get guns? Legal owner carelessness plays a big part in how criminals get gun, and with an increase in the number of weapons being carried you are just naturally going to see an increase in the number of weapons that legal owners lose to criminals, even if the rate doesn't change. Can you please direct me to some research on this? From what I have read, it is mostly straw purchases and stolen weapons that are used to commit crimes. more control won't help I agree 100% hence why 5 of the top 10 states with the highest public safety (according to US News) are constitutional carry states. Meanwhile places like Chicago, with very restrictive laws have extremely high gun crime. Florida's homicide rate was 118-157% of the national average from 1975-1986. In 1987 the reformed and reduced their gun laws. By 1991 their homicide rate was 4% below the national average. At the end of the day, laws only infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. Criminals are not going to pay attention to laws and it has been proven through multiple studies criminals fear an armed victim. and yet somehow 3900 people failed to pass or had their CCW revoked No system is perfect. Denials account for less than 1% of applications. Revocations account for less than 0.5% of licensed individuals. All of this also only applies to CCW as was stated before. There is no class, test, or license required to buy a gun and carry it. For some reason it becomes a big deal as soon as your tshirt falls over your gun. Now violent crime is going to sky rocket, your going to lose your gun in a bathroom and innocent people will be harmed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
99FLHRCI Posted November 3, 2021 Report Share Posted November 3, 2021 This brings up another interesting question: If you bring a firearm into a store that prohibits it, you are technically trespassing which is a crime. The argument is there that there will be an increase of non-violent crime directly related to this law. False. Ohio law provides that a person who knowingly violates a posted prohibition of a parking lot or other parking facility is not guilty of criminal trespass, but is liable for a civil cause of action for trespass. But let me ask this - what about the future state? Sure the change goes into effect now and you have owners who have had to be responsible and in some cases have training, but what about the kids who turn 18 a year from now and don't have that training? First, 21 is the legal age in Ohio. You cannot purchase a handgun until then and providing a gun to someone under 21 except in limited situations is a crime. Second, 18 year olds can exercise all of their other constitutional rights and at 21 have total freedom to do anything. Vote, consume tobacco and alcohol, drive, etc. Why should there be a limit on this one right. Third, everyone that turns 18 tomorrow, regardless of training or not, can go buy and possess a long gun. Everyone that turns 21 tomorrow can buy and possess a handgun, again, regardless of training. It is literally only the act of concealing that weapon that is being restricted by this law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted November 3, 2021 Report Share Posted November 3, 2021 Please explain how making a financial requirement, testing, time, travel, licensing, etc requirement does not constitute an infringement. Sure it is a definition issue. You have chosen to interpret "shall not be infringed" as meaning any kind of restriction, where as every single legislator, jurist, and court (including the framers of the constitution) that has ever considered legal issues related to firearmsl has defined infringement as an absolute ban. Also there is a whole body of constitutional law that advocates of the 2nd amendment continently ignore which says constitutional amendments are not absolute and have never been absolute. Federal, State, and local governments can write laws that restrict constitutional rights as long as they pass the strict scrutiny test. If you want to ignore all of American legal history, and piss on the constitution by redefining "infringed" your own way instead of how it has been treated this entire time I guess that is your first amendment right, but it doesn't mean it's true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted November 3, 2021 Report Share Posted November 3, 2021 False. Ohio law provides that a person who knowingly violates a posted prohibition of a parking lot or other parking facility is not guilty of criminal trespass, but is liable for a civil cause of action for trespass. that covers the parking lot, not the actual building. I believe I said INSIDE target, not hang out in the parking lot of target. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
99FLHRCI Posted November 3, 2021 Report Share Posted November 3, 2021 that covers the parking lot, not the actual building. I believe I said INSIDE target, not hang out in the parking lot of target. Once again KNOWINGLY. Most places are not very prudent about placing signs conspicuously and on all entrances. It is very hard to prove knowingly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
99FLHRCI Posted November 3, 2021 Report Share Posted November 3, 2021 Sure it is a definition issue. You have chosen to interpret "shall not be infringed" as meaning any kind of restriction, where as every single legislator, jurist, and court (including the framers of the constitution) that has ever considered legal issues related to firearmsl has defined infringement as an absolute ban. Also there is a whole body of constitutional law that advocates of the 2nd amendment continently ignore which says constitutional amendments are not absolute and have never been absolute. Federal, State, and local governments can write laws that restrict constitutional rights as long as they pass the strict scrutiny test. If you want to ignore all of American legal history, and piss on the constitution by redefining "infringed" your own way instead of how it has been treated this entire time I guess that is your first amendment right, but it doesn't mean it's true. Or as you stated a "de facto" ban. Hence again, why this very issue is in front of the Supreme Court at this very moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ODoyle Posted November 3, 2021 Report Share Posted November 3, 2021 how many days per week? How many weeks per semester? nobody said it had to be 8 hours all at once. For me (mind you this was in 2005) it was 1 period. 40 minutes in length. We had Health every day for 40 minutes for a semester. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.