circumstance now in my view of the district court and that just as of this point went off on a slightly wrong proposition of the law and that's were the result came  sweep of this small studio apartment and mr gill breast in the meantime goes to get his replica machine gun and to show it to the agents and as he's doing that he's moving in the apartment agent lowe who is the lead agency here are we contending was improper conduct by agent what we are saying is that when you tell three people you can come in and eight after when you tell the lead agent who's talking to you let me show you my machine gun and he raises his shirt so that you can see that he's armed what's going on is the agent is doing exactly probably what he's been trying to do which is he's establishing his control over the situation he's making of circumstances and if that's true even without there being any misconduct which we don't contend or improper use of techniques by the asians statement from the district court either so i just don't understand where thirty and but here is my issue that i want help like some help on us the district court apart from that statement didn't make a specific everyone to go because there's another aspect well i'm prepared to do whatever i want but i'd like to answer your question but if i might put it off for a little bit there's the fact separate aspect of the search and consent and that is the scope of the consent because there's no doubt that let's say we lose on this first issue that operates and let's say that the court takes the view look he consented to a search of his apartment that's what the written form says but the entire circumstances and indeed the agent's testimony make it clear that scope of what he was allowing to be searched was for a machine gun or maybe even for firearms if they had a warrant and went there in a state you can search for machine gun there would be no based upon which they could have searched it three years past box or a small metal medicine cabinet  because there's no likelihood there's no reasonable notion that those things could contain a machine gun and there's no evidence of a tiny machine guns existence in this record and the government's version of that point so have drawn by the jury and what they explicitly argue in the posing argument was gilbreath lying about possessing marijuana ten years ago and he's lying about it right here today and these two things are more or less the same but they never that's right and they never prove that he lied in the earlier incident they just prove that there was an earlier incident where he received a jacket in the mail and apparently have become suspicious package and it was and it showed that there was some marijuana in a pocket in the jacket that somebody had concerned so he came to the door with a loaded pistol said just the minute i closed the door partially put the pistol back by the t v then went on in and open the door and said come in i'd like to talk to you we'd like to talk to you about a machine gun and he said oh you must mean my replica and just  minute he went to the back at that point he had said to come in the agents and asked for her to take a motion someone other agents came in but at this time he had brought a replica machine gun from the back of the apartment to the front showed it to him and i was are twelve years earlier to show that he lied twelve years previous therefore he was lying of the jury could find he was lying when he said he didn't know anything about the marijuana the jury has to make so i certainly didn't want to step on anybody's toes with the wrong argument but i was trying to argue that if one makes a statement that just sounds a little bit unusual a little bit difficult to understand that something is just not normal happened once machine guns and all the rest of that and i think it's ok for the government having created that context the agents having created that context should not be heard to say that a well there's something extra special if they'd written on the form this is a