I've been looking through the number of firearms certificates you've issued in the last couple of years, Fowler. Yes. I think you've found it comes to a goodly round number. Yes, it does. None. Great. No more. No less. 92 sponsored applications none accepted. That is correct. Including the bloke I sponsored. Or more accurately, particularly the bloke. He is the chief toger of my lodge. If I can't swing him a permit, I'm going to knock a right dickie doodah, aren't I? I do not approve firearms applications in order to prevent you from looking at Dickie Doodah, Grim. Besides which, I could issue the fellow with a cruise missile permit, and you would still look like a Dickie Doodah. It is not within my power to prevent you from looking like a Dickie Doodah. Only God or a large bag could do that. It is your job to vet the applications. You're supposed to ask questions to find out who is a suitable person to own a gun. That's right. And surely the first question must be, does that person wish to own a gun? Well of course. And if the answer to that is yes, then clearly that person is not a suitable person to have one. This is the Nanny Stake on Matt. What? Because I don't happen to think that a man who lives in a suburban semi needs an automatic weapon. He's a sportsman, then tell him to buy a pair of plim souls. Sport? Sport? When did you last see a wild boar in gaspoth? Or an elk? If you did, dispatching it with a spear or an arrow would be sport. But deploying an elk seeking missile is just a cheating. This is a civil liberties issue. You are denying my toger his rights. And what about the rights of those who do not wish to live next to an armed man? Particularly one who attends weekly secret meetings in which he puts on a dress and kisses a dead turkey's bottom. We only kiss the turkey's bottom on special occasions. Normally we might do with a chicken nugget. I am talking about the rights of the individual here, which I consider secondary to those of the community as a whole. This town is a human nest. If you were an ant, what you consider it a matter of high monotereous civil liberties, that a socially dysfunctional worker ant be allowed to keep a pet ant eater, it was securely muscled and tethered yes or would. Then clearly you are quite mad, Grimm. Good day.