Previous Post
Next Post

Donald Trump (courtesy

“A federal officer says a man arrested at a Donald Trump rally in Las Vegas told authorities he tried to grab an officer’s gun so he could kill the candidate,” reports. “A complaint filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Nevada charges Michael Steven Sandford with an act of violence on restricted grounds . . .

It cites a report by Special Agent Swierkowski, whose first name was not included, saying Sandford told officers he drove from California to kill Trump and went to a Las Vegas gun range the day before to learn to shoot.

Sandford later went to a Trump rally at the Treasure Island Casino and approached a Las Vegas police officer to say he wanted an autograph from Trump. The report says Sandford was arrested after grabbing the handle of an officer’s gun in an attempt to remove it.

So, not a gun guy then. Thankfully.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Just another peaceful, tolerant Hillary supporter.

    When are Progressives going to be rightfully labeled a domestic terror group?

      • Pretty safe bet he’s not a Trump supporter…

        And Hillary’s ilk are the kind to compare Trump to Hitler and whatnot, thus giving their lemmings moral authority to do things like this.

        • “Pretty safe bet he’s not a Trump supporter…”

          Unless, of course, he heard that many people are more famous after they die and figured he’d help Trump’s popularity (not considering that popularity may not mean much at that point).

        • A TTAG reader would probably know that a cop most likely is going to be wearing a retention holster…

        • To repeat the obvious – almost every American assassination or attempted assassination of politicians has been perpetrated by left-wing assassins.

          Point #2 if the perpetrator in this case were a TTAG reader (highly unlikely, unless you include 2Asux and his troll ilk as “readers”) they would know that police use retention holsters, and exactly how to beat that retention device.

        • “A TTAG reader would probably know that a cop most likely is going to be wearing a retention holster…”

          Apparently, not *that* particular cop, Stinkeye, according to

          “He then reached towards the officer’s weapon to pull it out of the holster, which was not locked, the Secret Service says. Sandford was then arrested.”

          Oh, dear. I wonder if the security detail will get some recurrent training…

        • Why the hell would someone interested in gun rights or conservative policy do something so obviously destructive to those ends? Every major assassination has been the catalyst for major restrictions on our freedom and weapons.

          Before you tell others to get over their ‘butthurt’ or whatever moronic insult you think will coerce us into following you headlong into obvlivion, get over your blind devotion and emotional investment in a figure you yourselves can’t even explain or understand. Total waste of effort for both of us, since you fools have already killed RKBA for this election cycle & possibly beyond –you just don’t know it yet.

        • If it was a gun enthusiast, I doubt he would have had to go learn to shoot right before his assassination attempt on The Donald. Just sayin’

    • So one wacko tries to steal a gun and now all progressives should be labelled terrorists? So one anti-LGBT gun owner shoots up a gay bar and now any “traditional marriage” proponent who owns guns should be on the terror list right?

      Seriously people…

  2. Just the fact that he didn’t buy a gun himself makes it clear he’s a felon or californian doesn’t it?

    Google image search says he looks like a Californian estrogenifyed male.

  3. Knowing the far left, I’m afraid this will not be the last attempt. Their hatred burns hot, and they have no morals in the traditional sense.

    • I have sometimes seen it theorized that much of the Leftist enthusiasm for gun control and civilian disarmament can be traced back to pure projection: since so many Leftists seem to be angry, violent people with poor impulse control, they simply assume that everybody else is the same way, and therefore nobody should own guns.

      As this episode demonstrates, we should probably be thankful that relatively few Leftists (a) choose to own guns and (b) know how to use them. The rare exception–the Leftist who owns a gun and is properly trained in its use–can be a dangerous thing, indeed. See: OSWALD, Lee Harvey….

  4. Typical. Most of the mass murderers in this country have been leftists, or Muslim. This is only natural because both ideologies are based on hatred and self-loathing; with a belief that the end justifies the means, even if those means include murder.

      • The right’s hatred is reactionary and based on infringements upon their own sphere. That’s like saying if you hate your daughter’s rapist, you must be hateful also.

        • “They were a Democrat organization.”

          yeah, except on the issue of race the republicans and democrats switched in the 60s. Remember Strum Thurmond?

          People who try and equate the parties with their pre-southern strategy forebearers are either intellectually dishonest or truly ignorant. It’s like saying that the DPRK must be a democratic republic because it’s in the name.

        • The Democrats were the racists and definitely had a hand in staying the KKK. They also switched party platforms sometime between reconstruction and the 1930s (more of a gradual shift than flipping a switch). All things I’m not arguing.

          But they switched platforms because the Republican platform of big government was incredibly popular and the Democrats kept getting their assess handed to them. They switched platforms to get themselves a piece of popular pie.

          Tell me, if you switch your fundamental principles to gain votes how likely is it you’ll leave you’re party?

          Sure, the party platforms switched. The people in the parties didn’t. The Democrats that founded the Klan were still democrats after the switch.

        • “yeah, except on the issue of race the republicans and democrats switched in the 60s. Remember Strum Thurmond?

          People who try and equate the parties with their pre-southern strategy forebearers are either intellectually dishonest or truly ignorant. “

          Your thesis might hold a drop or two of water there except for the fact that the Democrat Party is still and always has been the party of racism.

          They just have gotten good at marketing, so they have convinced most people of the opposite. But, the evidence is clear.

      • J38,

        There is bound to be unjustified hatred in every demographic. What is most significant is that the frequency and magnitude of hatred on the left far eclipses the frequency and magnitude of hatred on the right.

        • Hey, I’m just a simple country boy looking for enlightenment and guidance. So, the politics of the southern dems who formed the klan were similar to the politics of todays left?

        • Tribalism, violence, and killing those they didn’t like?
          Yup, sounds like today’s left all right.

        • So, the the magnitude and frequency of the violence being visited upon gay men and lesbians over a considerable length of time is some how acceptable because it’s commited by right wingers whose toes are getting stepped on because they take their cues from a 2000 year old book of fairy tales?

        • “Hey, I’m just a simple country boy looking for enlightenment and guidance. So, the politics of the southern dems who formed the klan were similar to the politics of todays left?”

          Concern troll is obvious.

        • “So, the the magnitude and frequency of the violence being visited upon gay men and lesbians over a considerable length of time is some how acceptable because it’s commited by right wingers”

          Oh come on. That pablum might sell in the Progressive halls of academia or the closed comment section at, but really…it’s nonsense.

          Name five instances of violence against homosexuals in the last decade that have been perpetrated by “right wingers.”

          And your sideways assertion that we ‘accept’ such violence done by right wingers is so loaded with fallacious thinking that it’s hard to pin down just where the core fallacy lies. Hard, but not impossible: it is a non sequitur laced with healthy doses of tautology, false dichotomy and strawman.

      • With tens of millions of registered voters where simply checking a checkbox on the voter registration card indicates what political party someone claims to belong to, of course, there are going to be knuckleheads on both sides. But, hands down, most, if not nearly all, high profile murdering SOBs have checked the “Democrat Party” checkbox on their voter registration card. Since I am not a member of any political party, I do not have a horse in this race, but facts are facts, the Democrat Party attracts a lot more crazies to its ranks.

  5. Remember what 2asux proudly says. The ends justifies the means. Murder means nothing if your side wins.

    Thankfully this guy was even less prepared than the average anti gun person. Keep your heads on a swivel. Violence will escalate as the left realises hillary is not going to win.

    • 2Asux is no ordinary troll.

      He’s a true believer, and he doesn’t just copy-paste prattle.

      PAY ATTENTION to what he posts. We are learning far more about them then they are about us.

      (I have some doubts as to his recent professional claims, google advanced search isn’t behaving right now, when I can can dig up the particulars on a post of his a few weeks back, I think I can prove he’s talking out of his ass…)

      • You think you can prove that, huh? I don’t need Google to tell me that guy’s an idiot on the payroll somewhere.

        • barnbwt, As Geoff noted, “2Asux” was a guy who was very much on our side.

          He spent boatloads of time and effort crafting careful arguments that one who was truly versed in this debate could master. This was a gift horse. I wish I had that kind of spare time to teach others. Predictably, most people reacted emotionally, not logically, or with facts. Which is what the antis want, and what we simply cannot do.

          The guy was an agent provocateur, not an enemy. On a few occasions, I bothered to actually get him to admit what he was (I knew it from jump street, but just to clarify for the some of us who seemed to miss it) – and he did. Look back on the history, it’s readily available. I guess he got meaningful employment as he’s gone silent, which is kind of a loss in my view, but good for him.

        • He was just here about two days ago, being as verbose and helpful as always.

          I think he kinda likes TTAG… 🙂

        • I thought he was gone, I have apparently missed the reports of his demise being greatly exaggerated….

        • There has been floated the hypothesis that there are two people posting here as 2Asux.

          But barnbwt is correct; ONE of them has admitted as much several times. His “goal” is to get us to hone our debating skills.

        • Ooops, 16V, not barnbwt.

          {Side note: what the heck happened to the ‘edit’ button?}

        • Yall talking bout little old me?

          Ive been trying to do the same thing, absolutely no connection between me an 2Asux though.

          My plan is that maybe if all the rabid emotionally people take it out on me first, and learn to respond with intelligent counter points and a cool head, we can secure our rights.

          I can assure you I very heartily support the 2A, shoot every week. I just want my side not to folly in the same way as our opponents side.

    • Two ways to foil an assassination, either you stop the assassin beforehand or the target just plain doesn’t die. Both turn an assassination into an attempt.

      • An assassination is eliminating your target. An attempt is when you’re from the U.K., shoot a pistol one time then fook up and get arrested.

        • First, LOL.

          Second, I’m still fairly certain you foil the assassination. It is then a failed assassination attempt.

  6. I sure hope gunnies realize assassinations or attempts are a veritable “sum of all fears”

    • In Heinlein’s novel “Time Enough for Love” the president of Lazarus Long’s home planet (not Earth, but I can’t remember the planet’s name offhand) comments to Lazarus that he is afraid he is not doing his job properly because it has been a long time since anyone has tried to assassinate him.

      It would appear that Democrats are convinced that the only way they will win this election is if they eliminate the (R) competition.

  7. Uhhh, didn’t Glen Beck get suspended recently when a conservative call in guest said something to the effect of “a patriot should take him out”? Let’s not call this a left/right issue, Trump has pissed off people on both sides.

    • It was Brad Thor and his comment was more related to the line in the Declaration of Independence, “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and provide new Guards for their future security.” Brad Thor believes, as do I, that Trump is a potential authoritarian figure and that it is the responsibility of the people to remove those that usurp the rights of the people from power. Not a threat, simply a warning that both sides now are against our rights and the people should be prepared to defend them…

      • Right, I get that. Just pointing that out to the folks that instantly jump on “it’s damn liberals”. That kind of blind conclusion jumping is what gun owners should be fighting not encouraging. I find him as much as a risk to constitution as Hillary, they just target different rights.

        • The country’s done, we’re never going to get a real patriotic leader in office again, so you might as well vote for whichever dictator more aligns with your values.

    • They suspended Beck the same week he was on vacation.

      Not much of an effective suspension, if you ask me…

      • And how much sense does it make to suspend the host when a caller or guest makes a controversial, and ambiguous, statement? Worse yet, how is reading from the Declaration of Independence controversial or threatening?

        • Insurrectionist thinking. The Declaration of Independence was the product of an insurrection, and thus is illegitimate by definition. Serfs must never rebel against their lords.

  8. Uh, I’m confused. Where is it stated that the accused is a Clinton supporter or a leftist?

    • Someone who knows nothing about guns and wants to kill Thedonald, do the math.

      • And from the UK by way of California?

        All circumstantial, for sure, but bettin’ folks do like to play the odds.

      • Poor OPSEC to give out a last name as distinctive as that, I’d think. Betting this is more a feint at OPSEC, while allowing the guy to ‘publicly’ get credit for the save (I have to assume the greatest moment in a SS guy’s career besides the annual junket to Whore Island)

        • He didn’t save anyone (nor does the story say different), he’s likely just the agent in charge of the investigation (and interrogation).

    • Unless it’s a serpa. The internet experts tell me those make guns twice as deadly, you might die just looking at one….

  9. If he went to a gun range just before the attempt to learn to shoot, he clearly had even less knowledge on retention holsters.
    Another nutter-butter off his meds. Too bad the officer didn’t fear for his safety…..if you catch my meaning.

    • “Too bad the officer didn’t fear for his safety…..if you catch my meaning.”

      I catch your meaning and that’s a disgusting comment. A free nation can never allow its police to become judge, jury, and executioner. If you want to live in a dictatorial, third-world shithole, knock yourself out. I certainly don’t.

      • If someone gets killed while actively trying (badly) to kill someone I don’t see that as a negative. An “A for Effort” should be enough.

        • Nah, the meaning to catch was shoot ’em on the front porch and drag ’em in house.

          He was wishing the officer claimed that he feared so he could have offed the idiot.

          If the officer honestly feared for his safety and ended up killing the guy, I wouldn’t shed a tear. But if there really was no warranted fear and the officer just made it up to cover executing the guy, then I would have a problem with it.

  10. So, all violence is the spawn of the left and unjustified and any violence from the right is understandable and justified because someone, probably a lefty is stepping on their toes?

    • Nope, equally unacceptable, and I’m not sure why you think otherwise.

      I think the folks above are simply playing the odds, given the situation and recent history, but a right-wing nut trying to incompetently take out Hillary would be just as evil an act, imo anyway.

    • Tell the left to stop comprising the vast majority of mass murderers, criminals, assassins, and genocidal maniacs, and we won’t be able to jump to such conclusions.

    • We get it j38. It’s hard for you to accept that violence from the left is commonplace. Deal with it. As they become more desperate at the thought of a Trump white house this sort of thing will be even more common.

      • Did I say violence on the left is not common place? Don’t think so. What I read here is that violence in America is overwhelming from the left and right wing violence is inconsequential and justified anyway because their toes are getting stepped on. You want me to deal with it give me chapter and verse. Credible sources. And in the meantime tell all the gay men and lesbians that the hate and violence visited upon them by right wingers and evangelical Christians is inconsequential. It’s easy for you because you have no skin in the game. You have never been a target. Westboro baptist church.

        • And I’ve never targeted anyone, either. Which christian church did the pulse shooter belong to?

        • “Westboro baptist church.”

          For all their blowhardiness, name one act of actual violence committed by any member of WBC.

      • “As they become more desperate at the thought of a Trump white house this sort of thing will be even more common.”

        JWM, that’s exactly what I suspect is going to happen, actually.

        I’ve already read articles from the left warning their buddies that the hired thugs they’re using may cost them dearly in the election.

        We need to respond smart to it when it happens. We need Trump supporters at rallies in plain clothes videoing the attacks from as many angles as possible, and defending themselves *legally*, but non-lethally if attacked. Like give ’em a face full of Bear -be-Gone type pepper spray All on 1080 HD video.

        If we respond to it well, it will backfire *double* on them…

        • I seem to recall reading that Bear Spray is less potent that the types used on humans. When and where it is not prohibited I suggest a high-potency pepper spray, ideally with a chemical marker.

    • Yes. Next question.

      The right doesn’t go into your business and tell you how to live your life unless you are harming others. Therefore any violence from the right is either the defense of self or others.

      • Sergei. My friend, please. The “right” is just as interested in surveilling the internet, your phone calls, and telling women what they can do with their bodies as the “left”.

  11. So…here’s a cool thought. Guns shouldn’t be a “left/right” issue in the first place, so let’s not make it one? If ya’ll want to fight about government healthcare or welfare versus smaller government and self reliance, then we can have a left/right debate…but the reality is guns are a basic right in this country. Yeah, politicians on the left grasp onto it to get votes, but hell Bernie was as close to a pro-gun candidate in this election and I’m pretty sure he went to high school with Karl Marx. Don’t let the pantsuit and orange devil fool you into thinking that some of us “on the left” don’t also think we have the right to defend ourselves.

      • Democrats, and they haven’t really represented “liberals” in a long time. We allow the parties to split us up over fundamental rights so we can forget how much we actually agree on the basic rights.

        • If Democrats don’t “represent” liberals, then your ideology is dead. The only groups to the left of Democrats are the National Socialist German Workers Party and the CCP.

    • But it is a left/right issue, at least as far as the underlying mentality of each party is concerned. No matter what the specific details are of one candidate or another’s viewpoints, the fact is that the modern political left is about subservience to the state. THAT is the fundamental, underlying principle of the blue party today, and gun ownership is simply incompatible with that. Also, since Republicans will always vote against any gun control, and Democrats will always vote for it, well, yeah. An R vote is a vote for gun rights and a D vote is a vote against them. Plain and simple.

      • Yeah, I don’t disagree. The party alignment is one thing, but not the thought process. There’s nothing about subsidized college that implies “ban guns”. That idea has been stolen by statists. But by making “gun control” a “right wing” issue you devalue the fact that it’s a human rights issue. We have a fundamental right to defend ourselves, and that bridges left/right and should be valued by both. I understand it’s NOT, but the less “we” make it seem like guns are only the domain of the conservative the better chance we have of not being the target of misinformation and scare tactics.

        • “That idea has been stolen by statists. But by making “gun control” a “right wing” issue you devalue the fact that it’s a human rights issue.”

          Bingo. Now, how, as you with left political bias, how can you talk sense into your fellow Democrats?

          That kind of change needs to come from the inside of the Democrat party.

          Be advised, if they suspect that, you will be disowned with a *vengeance*, and God help you if your profession is run by Democrats, like education, your career, will likely be *over*, and probably suffer similar consequences in your social circles, as well…

        • ” There’s nothing about subsidized college that implies “ban guns”. “

          The fact that you don’t see the fundamental connection between these two is exactly the problem.

          Like many “discussions” of this type, you start off sounding “reasonable” with questions like “Why make guns a left/right issue?” But, this is nothing but “control the discussion” in sheep’s clothing…

          Forget Left/Right completely. That paradigm is dead so we don’t need to protect it from the gun debate. The new political paradigm, and arguably the one that has always really mattered, is “authoritarian vs libertarian.” Or at least something very similar.

          The bottom line is, as was so elegantly stated here a few days ago, private ownership of guns is self ownership. Everything “subsidized,” such as college tuition, is the exact opposite…it’s diametrically opposed to self ownership.

          The fact that you chose that example belies your thinking. You know gun control is an authoritarian move, yet you are trying to divorce it from other authoritarian moves to what purpose?

          In short, these issues are not separable. They can’t be separated from one another because they all rest on the fundamental principle of ‘self ownership of the citizenry’ vs ‘subjugated population.’

    • Apparently that right is less important to liberals than the rest of the progressive agenda, because they keep electing people hostile to gun rights. Yes, a lot of “liberals” are pro-gun, yet clearly make gun rights a lower priority. I have no problem with that, you’re free to vote for whoever you want.

      But if someone is going to vote for Hillary, then they are voting anti-gun and should acknowledge it. It may be that a person is with her on every other issue, which is fine. But if one votes for Hillary they are voting for a candidate who has publicly expressed support for the Australian model of gun control (bans and confiscation) who calls for “universal background checks” while her husband’s administration was responsible for putting up to 80% of FFLs who would conduct those checks out of business, who says the Supreme Court is wrong on Heller, and who wants to ban “assault rifles. In short, a gun control extremist and true enemy of the 2nd Amendment.

      The choice gun owning liberals need to make is simple. Is the right to bear arms more important to them than the rest of the liberal agenda?

      The only reason this is a left/right issue is in today’s political climate (and this was not always true) those pushing gun control are almost universally on the left.

      • And that’s why I’m one of those disenfranchised folks who will probably be throwing a vote to the Libertarians. I’d rather see social programs I’m for taken away than my civil rights.

        • Why not just write in “Shannon Twats”? You will end up with the same result. Voting Libertarian? Empty, meaningless gesture.

        • Consider it thrown away! Shannon Twats would be a better candidate than either of these buffoons. I’m waiting for the Republican convention to make a decision, but that’s a side note. Neither Hillary or Trump have any real concern for your rights. Trump may be better on 2a (for now) but he’s just as likely to stomp all over the rest of them. More importantly, this “liberal” is willing to vote “Conservative” if that keeps either of them out of office, but right now that’s not an option.

        • “Shannon Twats would be a better candidate than either of these buffoons.”

          Okay, I’ll bite. How so?

          Watts is a PR hack and not a very good one. There’s good reason to believe she does not even personally believe all the nonsense she’s said since Sandy Hook since her presence in the public spotlight was nothing but a job she was hired to do.

          What exactly about her makes her “better”? That she would most assuredly sell out to whatever foreign (or domestic) bidder offers her the cash to do so?

          I get that you don’t like your choices in this election, but seriously…I’m seeing a LOT of confusion about the world in some of your responses here.

    • The basic fallacy of your no Left/Right issue argument is that so long as you support and vote for leftist candidates (Democrat/Liberal/Progressive/Green/Socialist) and they openly support civilian disarmament then THAT makes it a Left vs Right issue.

      You cannot claim to support everyone’s gun rights and at the same time work to elect politicians who openly oppose everyone’s natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms and have in many cases not only desired but actively worked for the repeal of the Second Amendment in its entirety.

  12. Just another well balanced Liberal you think?? Nice peaceful bunch those Hildabeast supporters. Even I don’t want anybody dead. Or might I………….sometimes.
    I have a feeling he just was at the wrong parties speech today and said what the heck why not??
    Pre thought out went to a range doesn’t know a thing about guns it would appear. Lets see him get charged with premeditated murder for this one.
    Bet he just gets a swift kick in the pants after a slight check in at the local loony bin.
    Thankfully for Trump. Didnt know about a retention holster or……….is just after a few seconds of infamy.
    Either way a1st class idiot. Throw the book at him…..

    • Let the punishment fit the crime – when he is found guilty deport him back to that gun-free Utopian shit-hole UK where he came from. He is not even eligible to vote in this election and he thought it was appropriate for HIM to choose our next presidential options all by himself? Force him to live in London.

  13. Hey now. Where’s the universal background check / watch list that would’ve stopped this gun grab?

    • It’s Nevada – no background check required for personal firearms transfers. Of course, they are supposed to be by mutual consent.

  14. I don’t think opening the “scumbag” tent up and saying its all lefties is a good idea. The vast amount of gun violence is a-political, gangs, black on black, and domestic violence, and nutty kids, bad parenting; I think we should discount suicide really, a gun makes it easier, but you can always take an elevator up the parking garage. If you focus on political only its a tiny fraction, and we have some whoppers too, plus a liberal can always drop the Timothy McViegh or Eric Rudolf card. Both were fringe domestic terrorist types, just focused on the Hate America First.

    We talk a lot about the left being the leaders HAF, but Trump’s pretty much the same way; we suck, we can’t beat any one, dirty Mexican’s, blah blah. Hey dickhead, America’s pretty fucking great now, was it better under conditions in the 50s that will never happen again, in some ways yes, but my parents were poor Appalachian’s then, and it was pretty bleak. Plus, where else would you go in the world (assuming you don’t have 10’s of Millions of dollars like Trump)?

    • Correct. Not all scumbags are lefist.
      But that doesn’t mean not all leftists are scumbags.

    • Gangs are how the liberals stay in power. If it wasn’t for the gangs, Illinois would be a red state.

    • “The vast amount of gun violence is a-political, gangs, black on black, and domestic violence, and nutty kids, bad parenting;”

      Egads, is that amount of Cognitive Dissonance painful to walk with?

      What political ideology actively and routinely supports the cultural underpinnings of all those things?

      In other words…where does the “vast amount of gun violence” occur? In Progressive enclaves or where people act like they have some sense?

      You need look no further than destruction of the family in urban centers.

      Here’s an interesting read:

      Now, one of the big take-homes from that is buried rather deep in the article: Section 8 moved people OUT of their established communities (and all the social support that existed) such as they were, and ‘relocated’ them…far from friends, family, connections in general.

      This kind of crap is exactly the result of Progressive thinking…that “they” can, if they just control everything, make everything ‘better.’

      So, keep thinking problems in the US are “a-political” and the sewer we are circling just gets closer and closer.

  15. So if you demonize someone enough, and just keep blowing that dog whistle, some crazy dog will bark? You can get them to do your dirty work for you by just “innocently” blowing the whistle from afar?

    This is my surprised face.

    P.S. ISIS knows this too.

  16. So are we supposed to blame trump for his own assassination attempts? Nevermind, I’m sure the answer on MSNBC is “yes.”

    Retention holsters and training win again. Although this guy probably believed what he’s seen on TV and thinks you can just grab a gun from anyone and become a stone-cold killer.

    • He’s already blamed for his supporters being attacked by gangs of SJWs, the assassination is clearly his fault too.
      A video caused Bengazi, dontcha know….

Comments are closed.