Home Quote of the Day Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: Why The ATF Can’t... Quote of the Day Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: Why The ATF Can’t Take Your Guns By Robert Farago - September 27, 2016 87 Facebook Twitter Pinterest WhatsApp Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: Why The ATF Can’t Take Your Guns&body=https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/blue-force-gear-quote-day-3-13/"> Email ◀Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: CA Cops Lose 300 Guns">Previous Post Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: Pistoleros Protest Pi Pizza's No Pistols Policy">Next Post▶ “We always crack up when they’re like, ‘You’re coming to take our guns.’ Look, we don’t have the people.” – ATF Spokesman Corey Ray, quoted in Outgunned and Outmanned [via motherjones.com] ◀Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: CA Cops Lose 300 Guns">Previous Post Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: Pistoleros Protest Pi Pizza's No Pistols Policy">Next Post▶ RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR Charles: Let’s Finally Be Honest, Democrats’ Gun Control Laws Are Racist to Their Core Biden Could Never Enforce His Delusional Proposal to Ban Semiautomatic Weapons Even If It Did Somehow Become Law Senator Chris Murphy Whistles Past the Bruen Graveyard, Predicts ‘Victory After Victory’ for Gun Control 87 COMMENTS But if we did…… Reply Exactly so. We need to be very wary of those who brought us Waco, Ruby Ridge, Fast Runner. and a host of other civil liberties violations . Any bureaucracy. especially an armed one, will want to coalesce and increase its power. Reply Fast and furious. Reply Someone must have made a fortune… Thanx for correction. Don’t forget about Chocolate Rambo. He’s still out there somewhere, waiting for his sequel… Reply Haha exactly. He made no mention of intent, only capability. Reply Simple enough to fix the manpower as co-opting the local cop shop. Remember the phrase “To professionalize you must federalize!” We last heard that when they saddled us with the TSA. Reply When you can rule by decree it only takes one person. Reply … and then you can take your time with it. Just collect them as you go. They wont start with the inner cities either, as evidenced by Chicago — the place with the toughest gun laws in the country (if not the world) and the highest shooting and death rate per capita. Reply And I would be content to leave you outnumbered and outgunned. Reply Yeah, you don’t have enough jackboots in your agency to do it. You sure as shit wish you did, though. Reply It wouldn’t be the ATF seizing our firearms though. Reply Exactly. In just a few months, Fed.gov, via President Hillary, could put together a TSA-type organization full of the same little child groper types who would be more than ambitious to confiscate the guns of the United States. Reply They’d put recruiting ads in mother jones, huff po, and salon, to start. Reply I would like to share this, the post has been around for a little bit, but I believe Mr. Howe’s analysis of how an attempt to take guns away from the people would go is spot on. http://soldiersystems.net/2013/03/28/2nd-amendment-and-the-kool-aid-drinkers-by-paul-howe/ Reply Maybe no one will take them. Maybe you’ll hand them over: http://www.alloutdoor.com/2016/08/31/democrats-will-never-confiscate-guns-instead-youll-hand/ Reply A pro 2A person I know averred that because most people will want to keep their jobs, homes, and pensions, they– we?–will submit to the jackboots, be they local, state, or national. What might an alternative be? Reply As it has been said before, the gvt doesn’t need to come and take them. Go the NY(?) route: you can keep what you have, but you can’t sell it to another resident OR pass it / them to your heirs. After a generation or two, they’ve been mostly turned in or buried (and now unused). Oh, and make sure that the penalties are severe (e.g., FATCA with its 30% penalty) to “encourage” compliance. See? No need to go door to door. Reply The actual known (and who knows how much unknown) non-compliance in New York, etc. … especially places like Australia – does not support your fears. In fact, increasing gun ownership around the world, even in places like the UK that has been saturated with anti-self defense crap for a long time… would indicate the opposite. Maybe you would eventually abandon the tools for self defense. But… not everyone will. Reply Well in NY, those who complied with the Safe Act are only approximately 4-5% of all firearm owners. So in reality, very few people handed over or modified their weapons to complaint standard. There have only been a handful of prosecutions in regards to it, usually something that gets tacked onto a drug case or some other big felony. It is still incredibly easy to acquire normal AR-15s and high capacity mags in NY. I know plenty of people who have ordered lower receivers online and then build their own non compliant AR-15. You can also drive out of state to buy your own magazines, or buy rebuild parts kits online. Heck, I even know police officers with FFLs who will sell or help you assemble whatever you want. They flat out do not care. As a NY resident, you don’t always see this stuff out on public ranges, but trust me, it is definitely exists, and it mostly gets used on private property. The current trend is to have a compliant rifle for range time, while you non compliant rifle is used for private training and occasional use. Plus a lot of these so called compliant rifles/magazines are relatively easy to reverse back to original condition. For an AR-15 just remove and replace parts. For a 10/30 round magazine, open it up and do some drilling. If the state wants to make us criminals, then so be it. We will simply build, modify, or privately buy whatever we choose to have. Gun Control Laws don’t work on criminals, and they sure as don’t work on Patriots who hold the Constitution + Bill of Rights in the highest regard. My words to our NY anti American politicians. ‘Come And Take It. I dare you’. Reply They are still getting what they want even with the low compliance rate. Those “evil” guns now have to be hidden out of sight. They are playing the long game here and they are winning. What happens when you die with the contraband guns? How do you know your children and grandchildren will have the same gumption as you to defy the state? How do you know they won’t turn them in and not deal with the hassle of owning illegal items constantly looking over their shoulders that they could be turned in or caught? If you have to hide the guns then it is time to use them. Don’t look to the state or courts to save you especially since every court has upheld AWB’s and post-Sandy Hook laws. So now what are you going to do? The best thing I can do is continue to fight for legislation change, encourage others to vote for better politicians, and teach my children the importance of the right to self defense and the protection provided under the 2nd Amendment. When my children reach adulthood, and if they choose to not show any interest in firearms. Then sometime before my death, the majority of my firearms will be discretely given to friends or other family that I could trust. Obviously I could suddenly die before my plans are carried out, but I trust that close relatives would still give them to whomever I designated. Thankfully, I have several members of my family and close friends whom are very pro 2nd Amendment. As for risking confiscation in the event of self defense use, my personal choice is a pump action 12 gauge which is Safe Act legal. The good stuff is being kept for the next riot or revolution. This ^^^^ I’ve been saying this all along. Gun control is not about guns, it’s about control. The other element of this is if you don’t turn in your guns and they have any paperwork that says you have them, they have cause for a search warrant anytime they want to select you for harassment for any reason. They will always have something to hold over your head. Oh, and if you use one of your then illegal guns for self defense, you’re going to jail. Reply Easy Raoul. It ain’t time for shooting. Death Merchant would be put down like a rabid dog by even the most “Oath Keeper” kind of cops. Everybody will know when it’s time for shooting. Reply Really? Because I personally know local law enforcement officers who would absolutely refuse to enforce an unconstitutional gun grab, and would not fire on American citizens. And this is in NY! Imagine what the consensus among cops is in a more conservative state. At the end of the day, no officer wants to be tried like a war criminal. Sure you would get a couple automaton cops who want to prove themselves to their superiors. But we gotta remember the majority of cops are just like us. Apart from NYC cops, not a single police officer I have met since the Safe Act was passed, says they approve of it, and that they would not enforce it. A plan of confiscation would fall on the Feds to carry out. And they simply do not have the manpower. I highly doubt any of us will see door to door confiscation in our lifetime. Cops, for the most part, are conservatives. They take, essentially, the same oath as all other civil servants, from the president on down. That is “to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic”.They respect the nation, the Constitution, the Flag, etc. They believe in the 2nd Amendment for all law abiding citizens. A large number of cops own private weapons in addition to what they may be issued. They belong to pro-gun organizations, including the NRA and others like CRPA, NGOA, etc., and they support the same right for all. In an in depth policeone.com poll conducted nationwide, which covered the cops’ sex, age, race, rank, years of experience, size of force and community, and so on, overwhelmingly rejected the gun controls being fostered upon those who legally own firearms. (poll posted on the policeone.com web site for download) In California, the County Sheriffs Assoc, the Chiefs of Police Assoc, Game Wardens Assoc, and, IIRC, the CHP, have all stood up against the gun control laws rushed through the state legislature by the Dems, and signed into law by Gov Brown. These organizations are comprised of people of all political views. My own County Sheriff has posted a signed letter on the SO web site stating his position regarding violations of the 2nd Amendment and his intention that his department not enforce them. Further, he has advised county residents to purchase firearms and get trained, and said that if it comes to it, he will deputize every gun owner in the county. (He is very popular.) He approves CCWs. The cops who tended to be in opposition are those who owe their positions to political influences in major metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles. looks ta’ me a whole buncha folks missed the point here. the deal isn’t coming to yer door and takin’ yer guns (or yer life). article sez that ain’t a’happenin. making yer guns illegal to have, taking yer bank account fer havin’ a gun. separatin’ you frum yer kids ‘cuz yer a danger to them with yer guns. ‘that is pretty much the ball game, there. “WHEN” is a very sticky thing (see early 1770s) Our colonial forefathers would have been shooting long ago and for much less. You armed your kids George? Historically 12 certainly is old enough. If they could handle a Brown Bess or Springfield/Enfield can dang sure use an AR. The Founders were set upon in short order, with the British Army violating the rights of the colonists on a daily basis. What we face is far more insidious. It’s a slooowwww progressive violation of our rights. It’s the frog in the pot of water thing. Drop a frog in hot water and it will immediately fight to get out. Drop a frog in cool water and slowly turn up the heat and it will sit there and cook, never realizing that it’s life is about to end. Maybe if you had said: “We always crack up when they’re like, ‘You’re coming to take our guns.’ Look, we don’t want to take them”, I’d feel slightly better. But clearly the will or desire to take our guns is there somewhere even if he isn’t willing to say so publicly. Reply Yeah, all you need is a little help from somebody with a pen and a phone. Reply They won’t come by door to door to take people’s guns. They will establish a public shaming campaign through the media. They will legislate away all the weapons they don’t like (e.g assault weapons ban). Local law enforcement will confiscate them on a person by person basis when they find them. They will legislate registration and make no provision for passing down firearms to heirs (e.g. Massachusetts). They aren’t called the “progressive” party for nothing. This is “taking our guns away” – not door to door confiscation. Reply Yes, “Anonymous” is right. The Progressives will slowly, but surely, legislate away civilian firearms ownership. That is exactly what is happening in California and they are charting the path for other Progressive-ruled States and localities. Reply “We always crack up when they’re like, ‘You’re coming to take our healthcare.’ Look, we don’t have the people.” Reply “We always crack up when they’re like, ‘You’re coming to take our retirement funds.’ Look, we don’t have the votes.” Reply You couldn’t do all of them. But that’s not really comforting if you’re the one they do find a way to come after. Right? Reply Does anyone know, or hazard a guess, as to the percentage of Oath Takers among our police and Armed Forces, i.e., National Guard, that the ATF could NOT count on for any “foreseen enforcement”? Reply One or Two, maybe. Those folks aren’t giving up their fat salaries and pensions to say “no” to orders coming down from above. We are literally talking about million dollar decisions. Reply What percentage of the National Guard physically resisted NOPD’s door to door confiscations after Katrina? Do I hear zero? Reply We need to use the ballot and courts. If the SCUS changes with appointments of anti 2A judges, we are in trouble. NRA has done good civil liberties in challenging thru the courts restrictive laws. But much depends on state legislation. Such states as NY, MS. and CA know how restrict law abiding shooters through legislation. What they can’t do is legislate away human evil. The murders in Chicago don’t go away. do they? Reply Cat’s out of the bag Reply Even if the ATF could requisition the assistance of all police, sherrifs, state police, national guard, other armed federal and state agencies and the military, there aren’t enough to seize the firearms of over 100 million civilian gun owners in the U.S.. It’s nice to know there’s someone at ATF who understands reality, despite whatever he’d like to do. Reply It’s not because of your right to keep and bear them, or the Constitution, or because you will need them to protect yourself from people like him (your stupid neighbors that work for the government, and instead of using that power to serve you [which is the job they asked for] they are using that power to attempt to usurp more power and lord it over you). And it signals that it goes beyond that. You need guns to protect yourself from people like him and, as an ATF spokesperson whose message is sanctioned by the ATF, then the ATF. And, as the ATF’s message is sanctioned by the rest of your ahole neighbors who needed a job (the rest of your “government”) you need your guns to protect yourself and yours against your government. This ATF ahole is signaling that you are late in protecting yourself against the ATF. He said they always “crack up” every time they hear people say the government is going to take away their guns. Anyone out there in civilian land ever had the impulse to “crack up” about the possibility of your government slapping some tyranny on you? Reply Disband them, remove funding for any enforcement, on guns! Besides if you took away the Phony gun debate the Democrats wouldn’t have any thing to Help America, all they know is lie about guns, not one constructive Idea has come from this Party except more regulations stifling the American Dream by being super regulated! pretty soon they’ll be mandating the size of a bowel movement, color , how high, how much paper etc etc. Reply How many guys does the un have? Reply The UN? They would get lost on their way here. Reply Anyone who has thought about the possibility of confiscation for more than three seconds understands that the ATF would not be the primary agency involved in the confiscation effort. They would leave that job to the local police forces. They might bring the National Guard in to assist in places like Chi-Raq. Reply Where I live, the local police & Sheriffs have already stated that they WILL NOT comply with an order to confiscate firearms–where I am at firearms & self defense are held sacred Reply “But, if given the chance, we WILL shoot your dog.” Reply Its probably one of the reason that federal government has been militarizing the f.d.a, b.l.m, postal inspectors, i.r.s.,s.s.a. as well as every other bureau or agency that is under their control. Reply Because a quiet increase to the ATF’s budget wouldn’t fix that at all, would it? Reply I also love when they claim “Well, it’s against the law”, as if laws can’t be changed ever. Reply They certainly have the manpower to swarm your home if you begin tip-toeing a fine line that they don’t like. Reply So why can’t most people feasibly get automatics, SBRs, SBSs or suppressors? Reply Had I been on that tour, I’d of accidently dropped my Zippo lighter refill bottle followed by my cigarette. I don’t even smoke! Reply Take our guns away? After seeing that rack behind you I want to take your guns away. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. Reply Good to know ATF jagoff…I just got off my gubmint employee(DoD) son’s FB page, I know he’d willingly take guns for his fat salary,benefits and pension. His “friends” mostly hate Trump and find the hildebeast “acceptable”. Sigh…and buy,buy buy. Reply You’ll turn them in. You’ll turn them in after they pass laws that outlaw homeowner’s insurance if there is a gun in the house. You’ll turn them in after they pass laws that have a 25% higher income tax rate if you own a gun. You’ll turn them in if you are on record buying more than one gun in a 5 year span and not signing up for liability insurance. They won’t have to lift a finger. They’ll do it all through paperwork and bureaucracy. Think outside the box people Reply I always crack up when I hear the ATF employees say that I’m not coming after their jobs. Reply does it really matter whut badge they have, or whut is on thier bulletproof vests? when they come, they come. a’ course, that austrailian gun confiscation wuz a’ mandatory turn-in. don’t turn ’em in, an’ yer a criminal. after tha’ turn-in is done, they kin go to dealers an’ compare lists, an’d issue supeenas. mebbe that settlement in 1865 warn’t so smart, after all. Reply Ask David Olofson how many guns the ATF lets him keep and bear now. Reply That’s what the police and military are for. Reply I would be interested in a detailed account of how the confiscation effort was conducted in Australia. My guess is people either turned them in, or not. I’m sure there was significant manpower involved because they were paying people to turn them in. And I’m guessing we all agree that there is a high rate of non-compliance in Australia. Lots of guns sitting in people’s closets or undisclosed locations, never seeing the light of day. Never taken to the range out of fear that someone will see you with this gun and turn you in. Never transported out of fear that it would be discovered during an otherwise routine traffic stop. There are many ways that confiscation could be executed. But it’s not much consolation to know that I might be able to get away with keeping my guns as long as no one knows they exist. Reply I heard a story of one chap who imported a large quantity of scrap metal barreled actions (no moving parts inside) and surrendered them for AU$700 each. Things like that would inflate the surrender numbers. If you subtract the guns from guys gaming the turn-in for profit, the compliance rate probably drops to New York / Connecticut levels. Reply They don’t have to come and take them. They only need to outlaw them. Then, you can either turn them in or be arrested if caught with them. Reply They don’t need their own people. When the feds come calling with the orders, most local PDs will scurry on hands and knees to obey. Reply Not where I live–local PD’s & Sherriffs have all said NO Reply Why The ATF Can’t Take Your Guns: Because we would unload them first. Reply ATF does not need much manpower when ANTI’s at state level block good laws and ram through bad ones. Wake up Pennsylvania >> 242 amendments filed to STOP gun bill in Pa. requiring uniformity statewide , also called Preemption . 19 anti – amendments pushed to STOP semi-auto hunting in Pennsylvania. — story below …. http://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.php?t=310305 Reply What’s the line from the movie? “The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.” Well. These devils are trying to convince us they’re understaffed, underfunded, and woefully technoligically inept. Uh huh….uh huh… Trouble is, none of that is the relevant standard by which to measure. The ATF can easily choke off and out of business the FFLs, the manufacturers, the ammunition makers, and the spare parts suppliers. As for individual owners and their guns, they can always enlist local law enforcement for the purpose, as they’ve done in the so-called war on drugs. They could incentivise snitches, too, also a law enforcement favored tactic. Between the ownership cards and registration databases in states that have them, the carry licenses in states that have them, the membership rolls of gun groups, the warranty records with manufacturers, the digital sales records of major firearms retailers, the web traffic to gun sites, and the credit/debit card transactions of firearms-related purchases, the government has all the resources necessary for a de facto national registry. This jack wagon with his laugh and dismissive eye rolling isn’t fooling anyone. He wants our guns and he’s just praying, waiting and salivating for the order to confiscate to come down. We all know it. Reply Nah. Once they’re done confiscating all the guns, he’ll be out of a job. ATF employees need gun owners, just as much as HHS employees need welfare queens. The bureaucrats are in favor of civilian gun ownership. Highly regulated, highly restricted, highly taxed gun ownership. Reply an believe that once guns are confiscated, a bigger ATF will be needed to make sure they stay confiscated, an’ that former gun owners need close watchin’ so they doan git more guns somewheres. Reply They’d find a new mission. Nobody’s getting laid off from the government because they solved all the problems and ran out of busy work. Reply Like mentioned above. They don’t need to come get them. Just make life miserable, for you, with paper laws, until you cave. Reply They are not coming for you guns because that short circuits the Progressive’s end game. The end game is to exclude the (typically) conservative gun owner from the election process. Find out who owns “evil” guns via UBC’s and other methods. Make “evil” gun ownership a crime. Ratchet up the crime to a special “evil” felony. Legislate that “evil” felons can’t vote. Ta Da… Progressive end game achieved. Reply Tell that to those of us who live in commie states where they may not physically come and take them, although they (the Calif gestapo) have already done so. In one notable case taking the legally owned guns of a husband because his wife, a nurse, had once checked herself into a hospital due to job related stress. Under CA law, it is illegal to have firearms in a place where someone on the prohibited list can access them. It didn’t matter that they were locked in a safe, nor that the wife/nurse didn’t have the combination. It was impossible to prove that she didn’t have it. The report was turned over to the district attorney for investigation and possible prosecution. ATF may not take them, but that could change if HRC gets elected. Meanwhile, CA forges ahead with gun controls designed to make them useless. Reply We don’t have the people……..yet….. But with the right funding…. #BlackRobesMatter Reply Just read the – ” Wish List ” of amendments proposed to Pennsylvania bill HB-2258 , they will try to kill passage but it shows what anti-gunners would LIKE TO DO. ** Registry , Permits , AW Ban , Magazine ban & permits ,1 gun a month. http://amgoa.org/pdfs/Amendments-to-HB2258.pdf Reply In Fla confiscation would be laughably easy–State govt already has a data base of million(s) of CWP holders–cross-pollinate that with a mail watch of gunmag and NRA mailings, credit card charges, 4473 forms, and Facebook/internet friends/posts/blogs, and you have already covered 95% of potential gun owners !!! Voila–your work is already done for you !!! Deplorable DMD Reply The feds are going to have an increasingly hard time justifying busting people for drugs, especially weed, which historically has made up a huge portion of the drug war. They need to keep the money flowing to keep those jack-offs employed somehow. Besides, Hillary hasn’t accomplished shit in 30 years of politicking, she’s gotta build that resume somehow, her hubby got it done, she’s got the blueprint. Reply “Coming for our guns” doesn’t just mean the ability to send out people to do so, it also means the ability to do things like come after them legally, like the attempted M855 ban. Reply Wow, what a bunch of tinfoil. Can they take our guns away? Do the math – a 90 man police force using 9 man teams will take two years to search a metro with 25,000 “home” and domiciles. And they won’t even be on the street for traffic, drug busts, etc. Taking our guns away would result in us shifting them around the city and then laughing about it. As for shaming us that is exactly what the anti gunners have been trying to do since 1968. It’s not working, more Americans own more guns now than ever. READ THE NUMBERS. And for making them more ilegal? We’ve gone from a small handful of CCW states to 45, including the #1 capital of liberalism, Washington DC. More states are passing Constitutional Carry with no permit, and Universal Reciprocity is just a few votes from passing every time it’s introduced. Ban guns? We’d still have nationwide AWB. They had their chance. In point of fact, bills are now being introduced to chip away at the NFA of ’34, with silencers the first target for exemption. It’s the most egregious – many servicemen and women lose their hearing just because the system refuses to issue silencers because they will turn up missing – and the Command Chain simply doesn’t want to answer for that. With no Stamp and millions of silencer owners, the propensity to divert them would be nearly eliminated. You could go to the local hardware store and buy the appropriate model – just the way Europeans do where they are mandated to use them. The cost savings in attempting to alleviate deafness in veterans alone would be a major savings for the VA and health care in general. The viewpoint that the Federal Government is plotting to take your guns doesn’t stand up much in the face of the increased liberty in carrying and use. Does government inherently keep creeping into our rights? Yes, but the reality is when you draw a hard line in the sand and enforce it, the Government stops at that line. And you can make it retreat, too, IF you organize and support actions to make it happen. Not that this will do much to inform some, they are convinced of what they know and refuse to see the facts – such as if a “decree’ did come out to “turn in your guns!” then that old bumpersticker would be more true than ever – “when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” And these days, that’s over 60 million adults in America, who own and average of at least three each. Come and take them. Reply naw. yer gittin’ it all wrong. shamin’ ain’t the whole of it. taking yer money, informing yer boss they put ya’ under investigation for possible child abuse, sendin’ a bunch of nosy busybodies tuh yer house to check on yer kids welfare, every week, puttin’ ya’ on some sorta watchlist, all that. ifn yer guns hafta hide in order to be safe from government harassment, ifn ya’ caint talk about ’em, caint take ’em to the range (already closed for lack of customers), cain’t buy dangerous stuff frum companies that are owtta bizness. why wood they need to send poelice out ta yer place? Reply All they need is it make the Second Ammendment COMPLETELY void, I.E. pass a new Ammendment, or suspend the entire document and replace it with an edict. Then allow, or coerce States to put in place extreme penalties for being found with a weapon that wasn’t approved or licensed (if any would be allowed at all). Gradually as Officers refused to enforce these laws/edicts they would be replaced with more willing and unscrupulous characters. Reply A disingenuous comment by the ATF lackey. They in fact DO “have the people” with local LE depts nationwide that would be tasked with any enforcement actions. It would be done like in NY anyways, with an overnight dictate followed by slow attrition over time. A nosy neighbor, a roadside stop, a FUDD at the gun range, etc…. they dont have to go door to door. Thats the leftist ultimate plan anyway, make certain guns a felony, and the few remaining “permitted” firearms registered with a central database so they COULD go to your door if need be and take them. It would end up alot like NY state, a stalemate with non compliant owners and reticent LE, but over time pervasive leftist attitudes through non stop propaganda and a snitch society would grab alot of guns. Leftists are playing long ball, it took 100 years for Obamacare (really half that if you count Medicare/Medicaid.) They can wait another 40 or so for gun grabs at the rate the population is being changed. Reply “We will just send someone to take them” Reply LEAVE A REPLY Cancel reply Please enter your comment! Please enter your name here You have entered an incorrect email address! Please enter your email address here Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email.