Gun discussion. So piper6069 can let the other thread be.

[Nine8Six]

@SMK Shoe
Regardless of figures estimated and released by foreign agencies, I'll stick to say that I have lived, worked and traveled in China for quite a few years now (+15 years?) and never (ever) seen a civilian equipped, owning or collecting any sort of firearm (hand gun, rifle, shot gun, or assault anything). Just not a thing here, I guess. Take it fwiw...

Like Starter986 rightly said; swords, knives, and machetes are MUCH more cool

RE giving up my rights. That question confuses me more than anything to be honest. I'm not involved politically and couldn't care less about the subject, but that's just me. You know, as long as I'm giving the rights to pick my starbucks coffee in the morning, head over my work using public roads, be able to do regular groceries and/or free to attend public education & medical facilities, I'm all good man

[Nine8Six]

Originally Posted by maytag

Do you wonder, (i do) if China would have a better record vis-a-vis human rights violations, if their citizenry were armed? I'm sorry, but generally speaking, China is a bad example to emulate for something like this.

But I think there's still soone meat on that bone that we can gnaw on.
I think there's a culture problem in America, too. In the last 50 years or so, we've gone from a country where most of the pickup trucks in the high school parking lot carried a loaded shotgun in the rack, yet there were very few incidents, to a country where guns are prohibited nearly everywhere, and we have shootings daily. Again..... it seems to be a culture problem, not a gun problem.

But let's look further into the china comparison. Let's say it was determined that we are going to "hard ban" guns, as you described? Picture that for a moment. You're going to need a method of gathering them all up. And where will they start? Of course: the law-abiding folks. The "bad guys" will become more brazen, because they'll recognize they're the only ones still armed. But we'll spend a fortune prosecuting as criminals, those citizens who decide to lie and keep a gun for protection. We criminalize the good guys, then. But worse? We start a revolution. Because trust me when I tell you that most of the mid-west and the other red states will say "come pry this gun from my cold dead fingers".
I can think of another country that went around and collected their citizens guns..... that whole thing ended in concentration camps.
I'm sorry, for better or worse, guns are here to stay in America.

That doesn't mean we can't find meaningful ways to regulate them. But that's swatting at the leaves: we need to cut down the problem at the trunk.

As Americans, we must ask ourselves: what is different in society from 50 or 75 years ago, when shootings almost never happened? This is a conversation that'll very quickly become inflamed and personal. But nothing good is ever easy. Let's start at the very basic unit of American society: the family. What is different now than it was then? How about at school?

I think we can learn some things we probably don't really want to know.... but must. If we're just willing to ask the hard questions and answer them honestly.

But asking today's Americans to "dig deep", to be honest with themselves even if it hurts, to actually look at truth, instead of "my truth, your truth", yeaaaahhhh........ not gonna happen either.

We're on a train that's run out of tracks. It's only a matter of time before it crashes catastrophically.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Maytag, I realize and understand the cultural aspect, and respect that. So am I respecting the other societies' views on their firearm policies in their own country.

I'd like to ask this though; what is the ratio of legal gun owners vs crimes committed with them. Could it be 0.02% or some figure as little as this? Perhaps another way to ask; how many civilian guns are held legally in the US (or Canada for the same matter) compared to the number of guns used in violent crimes (in a year, let's say). Must be like 1,000,000:1 ratio?

I'm wondering about this figure because I'm trying to understand what you mean by cultural "problem". Can't imagine for a minute that the culture of guns is on the edge of becoming a crisis, or a problem (yet anyway, mind you)


***************
edit:
Just found the answer to my question. Well, perhaps closer to the cause of the problem. I'll venture in to say that your problem with guns is not ownership nor cultural, but "education". Looking at this report most if not all of the armed crimes, violent or not, were committed by individuals with little or no education background whatsoever.

You want your crimes and gun problem to be solved? reform your 'over-priced' education industry nation-wide and that'll go away by itself. School books for free and libraries open source, etc. You get the idea...

[SMK Shoe]

Originally Posted by Nine8Six

RE giving up my rights. That question confuses me more than anything to be honest. I'm not involved politically and couldn't care less about the subject, but that's just me. You know, as long as I'm giving the rights to pick my starbucks coffee in the morning, head over my work using public roads, be able to do regular groceries and/or free to attend public education & medical facilities, I'm all good man

So what happens when those in charge decide that Starbucks is not healthy and decides to make it illegal. Or when they decide what is taught in public schools or who gets and doesn't get "free" medical support.
So you are good with the people in charge deciding what "rights" you are allowed to have.
I do believe what was posted earlier. We do not have a gun problem as much as we have a cultural problem. I do believe that as a society we are digressing. decades ago you could order a gun thru Sears and Roebucks. Gun in every pickup truck in the high school parking lot. Children grew up around guns and it wasn't such a big deal. I was raised around guns and my daughter was raised around guns. I used them for work and relaxation. My sister raised her children to believe guns will jump up by themselves and make the owner shoot people.
Lets put the blame exactly where it belongs, the criminals and mentally defective people that use them to harm people. Guns are a tool, just like a hammer, or a car, or even a cell phone. Used for the intended purpose everything is good, but bad people wanting to hurt or kill others will use them for other than their intended purpose. Atleast with a gun I have the ability to defend myself and family.

[Nine8Six]

Originally Posted by SMK Shoe

So you are good with the people in charge deciding what "rights" you are allowed to have.

What the heck you want me to do about it? Sit on the ground and do that gurl cry thingy? Blow-up an entire government building? Dude, you resist and you end up in prison, you go around the rules and you end up in prison, you try to smart the system and you get outsmart the very next day, it just never bloody ends. Same in the USA or anywhere. And trust me... I'm talking with experience here and I won't try that 'I'm clever' thing again... got the message and walking straight now I tell ya. If you tell me coffee is illegal tomorrow morning I'll just move-on with my life and go for orange juice lol

You are talking about heavily militarized policy & law makers equipped with nation-wide media groups pushing their propaganda 'daily' here. A few guns!? come on guys...

We need more lobbyists "with balls", folks that aren't afraid to speak up and fight for the mass. Guns are only good for, as you've mentioned; self-protection and sports.

[maytag]

Originally Posted by Nine8Six

You want your crimes and gun problem to be solved? reform your 'over-priced' education industry nation-wide and that'll go away by itself. School books for free and libraries open source, etc. You get the idea...

Now THAT is something I could get behind!

This is PRECISELY the kind of thing that I'm talking about. Let's find and solve the root problems..... not blame it on the instrument used.

maybe, just maybe, it's easier to see (and say) from the outside looking in. Less skin in the game ?

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[piper6909]

Originally Posted by SMK Shoe

So you are good with the people in charge deciding what "rights" you are allowed to have.

Lets put the blame exactly where it belongs, the criminals and mentally defective people that use them to harm people. Guns are a tool, just like a hammer, or a car, or even a cell phone. Used for the intended purpose everything is good, but bad people wanting to hurt or kill others will use them for other than their intended purpose. Atleast with a gun I have the ability to defend myself and family.

People in charge DO decide what rights you have, they're called Judges and Lawmakers.
The constitution gives us certain "inalienable rights". But since it can often be rather vague and taken out of context, we have judges who are the final arbiters.
And by the way, our Constitution was written by people in charge.

The good news is that we can still decide who we put in charge.

Actual and complete Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I love how people tend to leave out the "well regulated" part.

Yes, guns are tools, just like cars. But you need training and pass an aptitude test, a license, insurance and registration before you can drive a car. And there are countless safety regulations that play a part in the design of a car. Imagine if we treated cars like guns: People of all ages would be driving around, without having to pass any sort of aptitude test, no insurance if someone hit you. And seat belts, air bags, and crash tests? pffft! Those are for wimps! And BTW, you're not allowed to keep records to analyze the data of any crash that happened. Yeah, that would be fun! So maybe you may want to rethink your analogy between guns and cars. In all seriousness though, having liability insurance for owning a gun may not be a bad idea.

And I agree with you that we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. That's why I find it very disturbing that Rump made it harder for agencies to flag those people:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-sign-bill-revoking-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-illnesses/


.

[SMK Shoe]

The snopes article even states that the regulation that President TRUMP did sign to be rescinded was never put into effect and did go thru both chambers of congress and had a majority vote to make it to the Presidents desk. Mental health issues are already suppose to be accessed thru the NICS system. There is a breakdown there that needs to be addressed. Taking weapons away from law abiding citizens is NOT going to fix the problem.

I still believe the analogy between guns and cars and hammers. If a criminal steals a car and uses it to hurt someone, why should we take cars away from law abiding citizens.


"Well Regulated"
To answer the question presented, we must start out by telling you that there are several opinions as to what the meaning of "well regulated militia" actually means. Some think that this means the Army or the Army National Guard in each State, which is regulated basically by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Others however, believe that this refers to the Militias of the Several States which are made up of all the people within them, citizen soldiers who are well prepared and organized for the exercise of their duty to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
First, none of us could disagree that the term "well" means simply "good". Second, while some disagree as to whether all people or certain volunteers in the National Guard are the "militia", all can accept the fact that this is some assembly of citizen soldiers.

Finally, this leaves us with the ambiguation regarding the word "regulated". We know that this is basically a verb or an action that is in the past, meaning it has been completed or has been done. In the context of the protected right, its safe to say that "A well [blank] militia" is the resulting act completed by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". Hence, we must ask which definition of "regulate" would be the effect of the people bearing arms?

Here are some definitions for the word, "regulate":

regulate -Merriam Webster's Dictionary (transitive verb)
a : to govern or direct according to rule
b
(1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority
(2) : to make regulations for or concerning (regulate the industries of a country)
to bring order, method, or uniformity to (regulate one's habits)
to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of (regulate the pressure of a tire)So, how could the people being armed cause the militia to be governed or directed according to rule or law? Well, I guess you could simply say that since the people are the enforcers of law, that the fact that they armed, would enforce that the militia is governed by the rules that they make, since they have the guns. You might also say that we should read only that everybody should have arms in order to meet the obligations necessary should you be called forth according to the rules governing the militia, which makes it good.

If we consider the second definition, its quite plain to see how everyone having arms would mean the militia would be in good order and in fact brought into uniformity, as to what makes a good fighting force, being one which has the effective means to conduct militant actions.

The third definition could also leave you to assume that everyone being armed fixes the time as while the Constitution is in force, and the amount being everyone constitutes what it means for a militia to be well regulated.

In every one of these definitions however, there is no doubt that it involved the people being armed, making it hard for any common sense evaluation of the clause that the government can pick and chose who can or can not be armed. In fact, the words "shall not infringe" could never be more clear as to the intent of the Amendment. Simply, that the government can not break this law.

So, if the government broke this law, the militia would not be well regulated, and the States would not be able to secure freedom. Since the Second Amendment is well known to have the purpose of protecting rights, its practical to assume that those rights would have the intent and the design to secure those rights, and that rights are freedoms. This Amendment therefore says that this freedom is protected by all of the people who can bear arms in order to secure this liberty, providing them with the capability to doing so. This capability is what makes the militia in good proper order and uniformity, thus the riddle behind the meaning is fully resolved.
A "Well Regulated" American Militia is the entire population free to possess arms in order to secure the liberty of the place in which they live, in their own homes, in their communities across each State and ultimately encompassing the entire nation.

Without any Amendment to the contrary, this means that the militia must contain every person capable of bearing arms. Just who is capable or authorized? The people, which are every individual which make up each one of these United States, who in accordance with the rights granted by the laws of nature and force of arms may fully execute their sovereign authority over their domain to secure liberty, period!

[maytag]

Originally Posted by piper6909

Actual and complete Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I love how people tend to leave out the "well regulated" part.


.

And I love how others simply ignore what the rest of it meant to the founding fathers when it was written and ratified.

I suppose YOU'RE one of those who thinks that is referring to what we now call the National Guard?
Check your history to understand the context of "...being necessary to the security of a free State...". The National Guard doesn't fill the need they intended. Not even close. In fact, the National Guard would indeed represent the danger they wanted us to be able to defend ourselves FROM.

[piper6909]

Originally Posted by maytag

And I love how others simply ignore what the rest of it meant to the founding fathers when it was written and ratified.

I suppose YOU'RE one of those who thinks that is referring to what we now call the National Guard?
Check your history to understand the context of "...being necessary to the security of a free State...". The National Guard doesn't fill the need they intended. Not even close. In fact, the National Guard would indeed represent the danger they wanted us to be able to defend ourselves FROM.

You'd suppose wrong. First of all, there's an estimated 20,000 to 60,000 militia groups in the USA. We don't know the exact number because why? They're NOT regulated. That was my point. They love to harp on the 'right to bear arms' part, but conveniently forget the 'well regulated' part.

I actually think it's an outdated concept, anyway. A group of butt-scratching, beer-bellied yahoos with machine guns against the best equipped and best trained forces in the history of the world? HAHA! I'll take that bet!

I'm a gun owner. But I want nothing to do whit the NRA and some whacked-out, anarchist militia groups. I suppose some militia groups are good, but most seem to me like wannabe army rejects. The NRA was good up until around the 80's or 90s, when they just went off the deep end, in my opinion.

[maytag]

Originally Posted by piper6909

You'd suppose wrong. First of all, there's an estimated 20,000 to 60,000 militia groups in the USA. We don't know the exact number because why? They're NOT regulated. That was my point. They love to harp on the 'right to bear arms' part, but conveniently forget the 'well regulated' part.



I actually think it's an outdated concept, anyway. A group of butt-scratching, beer-bellied yahoos with machine guns against the best equipped and best trained forces in the history of the world? HAHA! I'll take that bet!



I'm a gun owner. But I want nothing to do whit the NRA and some whacked-out, anarchist militia groups. I suppose some militia groups are good, but most seem to me like wannabe army rejects. The NRA was good up until around the 80's or 90s, when they just went off the deep end, in my opinion.

And, once again piper, you and I find ourselves in more agreement than either of us is likely comfortable admitting. Haha

I think I agree with ALL of that.

Here's what I'd add, though:

The purpose that the writers intended was that there would remain in place our ability, as citizens, to resist oppression from our own government. At the time this was militia. Those Patriots had little in common with today's militia groups, as you've accurately portrayed them.

And you're right that the average citizens have little chance against the military might of the United states. However: it's not only a question of "could they win". It's the idea that there IS, and WILL BE, resistance to oppression. A government bent on an agenda will think twice before taking up arms against its armed-citizens. But if those citizens aren't armed, then there's no need to hesitate.

Again: I'm not one who thinks it'll come to that. At least not in my lifetime. But if we all hand over our guns, what's to stop a guy like trump from exercising his role as commander in chief and "taking over"? Or Bernie? Or AOC? Or any of the many other individuals who think their cause is worthy of ignoring the will of the people as demonstrated at the polls?
The 2nd amendment provides a very important supportive role to the REST of the constitution.

IMHO


Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[SMK Shoe]

Originally Posted by piper6909

I actually think it's an outdated concept, anyway. A group of butt-scratching, beer-bellied yahoos with machine guns against the best equipped and best trained forces in the history of the world? HAHA! I'll take that bet!

Well, you would probably loose that bet, 1. A large majority of the military are patriot's and would not follow a illegal order to engage the US population. 2. A very large number of those patriots already wore the uniform. Larger number of us older and little slower patriots than in Uniform. 3. US Military does not have the stomach to fill body bags with soldiers and patriots over illegal gun seizures. 4. You seem to believe that the military members are mindless drones. Far from the case. Most believe in God and Country more than Government politicians. 5. I won't comment on the best equipped and trained in the history of the world, I am way to "in the know" and that statement is far off the mark.

[SMK Shoe]

Originally Posted by piper6909

Yes, guns are tools, just like cars. But you need training and pass an aptitude test, a license, insurance and registration before you can drive a car. And there are countless safety regulations that play a part in the design of a car. Imagine if we treated cars like guns: People of all ages would be driving around, without having to pass any sort of aptitude test, no insurance if someone hit you. And seat belts, air bags, and crash tests?
In all seriousness though, having liability insurance for owning a gun may not be a bad idea.


.

So there are no idiots driving cars, drinking, texting, doing drugs, not paying attention hurting/killing people.
You just can't let it go about people of all ages. NO ONE here wants a three year old with a machine gun. you have to be 18 years old to buy a long gun and 21 to purchase a handgun. Yes, you can allow someone under that age to use them but must be supervised.
I agree about liability insurance. You have insurance for your car/home/medical and other things important to you. why not for weapons. BUT, lets call it a TAX and make everyone in the US pay for it like O'Dumbo Care. Sounds fair? I have no problem at all letting you pay for my gun insurance with your tax.

[piper6909]

Originally Posted by SMK Shoe

So there are no idiots driving cars, drinking, texting, doing drugs, not paying attention hurting/killing people.
You just can't let it go about people of all ages. NO ONE here wants a three year old with a machine gun. you have to be 18 years old to buy a long gun and 21 to purchase a handgun. Yes, you can allow someone under that age to use them but must be supervised.
I agree about liability insurance. You have insurance for your car/home/medical and other things important to you. why not for weapons. BUT, lets call it a TAX and make everyone in the US pay for it like O'Dumbo Care. Sounds fair? I have no problem at all letting you pay for my gun insurance with your tax.

There are people who may CHOOSE to never own a gun, but EVERYONE will eventually need health care. It's a matter of time. It's not exactly a choice. THAT'S why we should keep the individual mandate. When an uninsured person goes into the ER and can't pay, we ALL pay for him/her in the form of higher premiums. Is that fair? Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Weren't Repubes supposed to be all for that?

You don't like Obamacare? I hope you, or anyone in your family don't have a pre-existing condition. But if you do, because of Obamacare, you can still get insurance when you need it. Before Obamacare you would have been denied. Thanks, Obama!

[piper6909]

Originally Posted by maytag

And, once again piper, you and I find ourselves in more agreement than either of us is likely comfortable admitting. Haha



Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

HAHA! I'm going to take a bath in Iodine now!

Actually, and I think we may have discussed it before, there's more that we actually agree on, than disagree. And I'll never be uncomfortable to admit that.

[SMK Shoe]

Wow, I can't even try to reason with you piper. You are a mouth piece for CNN and MSNBC. I was actually starting to enjoy the back and forth, but you are off the rails. Reading what you post is like the talking points for the media. Yea, Odumbo care is so cheap, Really more expensive than any private plan, just the tax payers cover the majority of the premiums.
You like to insult the sitting president, anyone here that doesn't think the same as you. Don't even read and respond to items posted in response to yours. When I hear about people with Trump Derangement syndrome, figured it really isn't that bad. Well, after the last week or so I believe it is that bad.
You keep beating your drum about gun control, mind control, Odumbo care, and whatever else floats your boat. Please stay up there in PA. because down here we have people trying to fix things, not just repeat talking points. Hope your brain doesn't explode when PRESIDENT TRUMP gets reelected. Please tell us how any of the communist/socialist that you support will do things.

Please get some mental help, the hate you have is gonna destroy you.

[piper6909]

Originally Posted by SMK Shoe

Wow, I can't even try to reason with you piper. You are a mouth piece for CNN and MSNBC. I was actually starting to enjoy the back and forth, but you are off the rails. Reading what you post is like the talking points for the media. Yea, Odumbo care is so cheap, Really more expensive than any private plan, just the tax payers cover the majority of the premiums.
You like to insult the sitting president, anyone here that doesn't think the same as you. Don't even read and respond to items posted in response to yours. When I hear about people with Trump Derangement syndrome, figured it really isn't that bad. Well, after the last week or so I believe it is that bad.
You keep beating your drum about gun control, mind control, Odumbo care, and whatever else floats your boat. Please stay up there in PA. because down here we have people trying to fix things, not just repeat talking points. Hope your brain doesn't explode when PRESIDENT TRUMP gets reelected. Please tell us how any of the communist/socialist that you support will do things.

Please get some mental help, the hate you have is gonna destroy you.

Wow! Seriously? What set you off? You're the one that brought up Obamacare in the first place. Name something I said that wasn't true. Sorry that the facts offend you.



P.S.
Rump will not get re-elected. He lost the popular vote the first time and he'll lose by more and lose the electoral college the second time. I had TDS, when I voted for him. And I know there are many like me who got duped into giving him a try but have since then caught on to his con game. Fool me once...

[maytag]

Watch it....
I brought this thread into the world, and I can take it out....

Actually.... not sure if i can.
But in the spirit of the new year, please accept my plea for Kumbaya.

Piper, I've learned to read your messages, which tend to be inflammatory, as if you were in front of me, with a ****************-eating grin on your face because you're TRYING to push my buttons, and enjoying that you can. ;-) I'd suggest this method to some others here, as well.

I'd appeal to our commonalities here, recognizing that none of us are stupid, and that the differences in our lifes' experiences and education can shape our outlook on policies. We can disagree with someone and still respect their intellect and intention.

Yes.... this is a "can't we ask just get along?" Post.



Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[piper6909]

Originally Posted by maytag

Watch it....
I brought this thread into the world, and I can take it out....

Actually.... not sure if i can.
But in the spirit of the new year, please accept my plea for Kumbaya.

Piper, I've learned to read your messages, which tend to be inflammatory, as if you were in front of me, with a ****************-eating grin on your face because you're TRYING to push my buttons, and enjoying that you can. ;-) I'd suggest this method to some others here, as well.

I'd appeal to our commonalities here, recognizing that none of us are stupid, and that the differences in our lifes' experiences and education can shape our outlook on policies. We can disagree with someone and still respect their intellect and intention.

Yes.... this is a "can't we ask just get along?" Post.



Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Thanks for being the adult in the room, Maytag.

Honestly, I don't mean to "push buttons", and if I came across that way I apologize.

I do, however, like to get my point across. And sometimes, it can come across a bit abrasive. Not intentional. Just passionate argument.

I really don't know what set off SMK Shoe in post 73. Do you?

Shoe, I don't know what set you off, but I meant nothing personal. If something I wrote offended you, I apologize and please let me know what it was so to avoid future mistakes.

[piper6909]

Originally Posted by SMK Shoe

1. A large majority of the military are patriot's and would not follow a illegal order to engage the US population.

I agree. That's another reason why I think the 2nd amendment is an outdated concept when it regards a tyrannical government.

I believe in our men and women in uniform and I believe they will defy illegal orders to attack us. Because they are us. Our friends, Our relatives. Cheers to them and cheers to us!

I also believe in government of, by and for the people. The government is us, and there are enough good people and enough checks and balances to stop a wannabe tyrant.

[DoninDel]

Originally Posted by maytag

Reasonable comments. I disagree with most of it, but reasonable nonetheless.

I'd challenge the phrase above, though.
Can you think of EVEN ONE shooting this would've stopped? I'm unaware of ANY situation where a shooting has occurred and later we said "if only we'd stopped him when we saw him carrying that gun on the way there!". Or even more: "at least we could've checked that the bullets were in his pockets!"

One obvious thing that it seems we frequently miss in these conversations: it is already against the law to kill someone. It's already against the law in most states to even "brandish", except in self defense. I'm completely unaware of any situation where all laws were followed up to the point of the actual shooting. The truth is that the shooter has already broken many laws, long before he pulls that trigger. Why will more laws make a difference?

As I said in the first post of this thread: I'm in favor of "common sense laws". But common sense to me means something that will, in fact, demonstrably make an impact in the fight against senseless killings. I am decidedly NOT in favor of "feel good" laws, or knee- jerk "solutions".
Show me it'll work, I'm all for it.

Remember, these comments come from a non- enthusiast. I go to a range every 5 years or so, and the rest of the time the guns are in the closet. Im not a guy who thinks I'll someday need that gun to defend myself from a tyrannical government. I'm not a guy who thinks I'll need it for self defense. I have a large axe handle at each door for that. ;-) but I am a staunch defender of civil liberties.... and I think every internal-combustion-enthusiast would understand that. Because Al Gore and AOC would do away with our hobby in a hurry, given an opportunity.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

My thoughts are that we have become WAY too comfortable with seeing guns in public. We are unique among civilized nations in that, and I believe there is a connection. Guns are regarded as a solution here, other nations see them as a problem.
My $.02