General Question

Hawaii_Jake's avatar

Will we now see more guns on the streets because of today's ruling by the US Supreme Court?

Asked by Hawaii_Jake (35084points) 6 days ago

General Section Question

Here is what the US Supreme Court ruled. To put it succinctly, all adults in the US have a right to carry a gun anywhere.

What do you think of this?

I think it’s time to repeal the Second Amendment and only allow guns for hunting and for law enforcement by members of such and for national defense.

Again, this question is in the General Section. Off topic posts will be flagged.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

64 Answers

Smashley's avatar

We’ll just have to widely expand stop and frisk to support this new freedom.

zenvelo's avatar

I have been a supporter of repeal of the 2nd Amendment since Sandy Hook. It’s the only way to get the courts out of our gun laws.

chyna's avatar

I think this total disregard of what is happening in the US right now flies in the face of democracy. It’s like they are plunging the knife (or gun in this case) in deeper.
I honestly thought I had misread the headlines of the ruling and had to read a second time.
Yes, I do think this will enable more people with mental issues to be able to obtain guns and kill more people.

ragingloli's avatar

See, as the Abortion issue has shown, where Texas and other regressive states have repeatedly passed unconstitutional laws to outlaw abortion, with the explicit goal of having those litigated to the supreme court, and that one eventually overturning Roe vs. Wade, all that legislatures need to do is keep passing those gun control laws, litigating them to the SC, until a more moderate SC affirms those laws’ constitutionality again.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Jeruba's avatar

As I read it, it basically means you can go about your business while expecting to be killed anywhere, any time, by some angry, not even necessarily crazy, gun owner. The whole country in the 21st century is on track to look like the 19th century Wild West as we used to see it on TV.

Words make a difference. The opponents of liberal gun laws should have quit talking about gun control a long time ago and instead spoken of gun safety and gun access. Any form of “control” causes a visceral reaction in some of our good citizens, especially those who fail to understand that freedom is not absence of laws but rather depends on strong, wise, and enforceable laws that apply to everyone.

Laws that favor the aggressor do not mean freedom for the rest of us. What kind of freedom means that I have to live my life in a state of yellow alert when I leave my house, and even while I’m in it? That would be exhausting. The TV show we’re in now is more like a postapocalyptic dystopia.

janbb's avatar

I am sickened by this decision. It seems that the majority on the Court are all in favor of the Constitution as they interpret it when it favors their bent but have no trouble disregarding it when it doesn’t as evidenced by their decision yesterday that governments have to support private religious schools. After Sandy Hook, after Uvelda, after a million mass murders, it is a sick, sick decision.

I don’t get the practicality of repealing the 2nd Amendment though. My understanding is it would have to be ratified by ¾ of the states and that’s a non-starter. But expanding gun rights under a hypocritical interpretation of the amendment shows a sickening lack of concern for the populace.

WhyNow's avatar

You know Jeruba I don’t see humans the way you do I see humanity as intrinsically
good, capable of great art great science great love, for each other. I am
naive but so what!

When criminals serve notice on society that they cannot be trusted they
should be removed. In my wildest dreams I cannot point a loaded gun at a
pregnant women’s’ belly like George Floyd did. Yet he is a hero and I am still
naive. I’m still fine with that!

Response moderated (Flame-Bait)
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
flutherother's avatar

New York 2022,Tombstone 1881 What’s the difference?

Response moderated
Tropical_Willie's avatar

Not in my state which is a “shall-issue” state for handguns. I was in the supermarket today two people had handguns on their hips. Glock 9mm on one guy and lady had s .380. I can’t guess how many have conceal carry permits and have their guns in their purse or under a jacket.

janbb's avatar

@Tropical_Willie What is a “shall issue” state?

Tropical_Willie's avatar

The state must issue a gun permit with the signature of the sheriff, no requirement to show a NEED for a permit.

seawulf575's avatar

The law that was on the books in NY required anyone that wanted to get a permit to carry a gun to show justification why they needed it for self-defense. This is in direct contradiction to the 2nd amendment since it abridges the right to keep and bear arms. It puts the state in a position of deciding if you need to keep or bear arms. The 14th amendment prohibits the states from creating laws that overrule federal laws and Constitutional rights. The case brought to the SCOTUS addressed this. THAT is what the ruling was. There are still gun laws in place, there are still limitations on who can get guns (no felons for example)...but the state doesn’t get to nix you just because they don’t want the public armed.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Writing Standards)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
gorillapaws's avatar

@seawulf575 “This is in direct contradiction to the 2nd amendment since it abridges the right to keep and bear arms. It puts the state in a position of deciding if you need to keep or bear arms…”

How does a state “well-regulate” its militia if it can’t say who does and doesn’t get arms? That sounds like an “unregulated militia.” Being a strict constitutionalist, I’m sure you see the problem with not following a literal interpretation of the language of the Constitution…

Response moderated
Pandora's avatar

@WhyNow These are the facts about the case. There was no report about her being pregnant.
I think you could’ve argued that he was never a hero without talking about something you never bothered to research and I would’ve agreed. A hero is technically someone who goes out of his way to put themselves in harm’s way to save someone else.

Darnella Frazier was a hero (even if she did not save Floyd) for standing up to the cops and filming them while protesting they stop, even though there was a chance the cops could’ve decided to hurt her for filming their crime. Also, you cannot and should not kill anyone over a crime they already paid for. Cops do not get to be judges, juries, and executioners.
@Hawaii_Jake, I think with this group of Justices, our country will implode. Like so many other great Nations we are headed in a downward spiral. I believe we will resemble the Wild Wild West, and tourism will die, and eventually, we will head into another civil war. This is just the beginning. Funny how they don’t mention that conceal carry would be okay in Washington DC.
I wonder why?

kritiper's avatar

“The gun is good.” More guns = more good.

seawulf575's avatar

@gorillapaws Taking words out of the 2nd amendment and assigning different meaning to them doesn’t make sense. Let’s step back a bit and review:

“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.”

The statement is not that the state gets to decide who can be armed with what guns. A militia, even if you want to take the strict interpretation, is a military made of civilians. They can be called to defend the state and the state can direct them…regulate them…in the battle. They could even call for training of the troops as necessary. But the second part of that statement…The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed…points to the hole in your question. It doesn’t say the people can keep the arms that the government gives them, it doesn’t say they can keep only arms that the government is okay with, it doesn’t say that they can keep and bear arms only for hunting, sporting, or war purposes. It assures the people that they can keep and bear arms. A STRICT Constitutional interpretation would say that if I wanted a howitzer or a tank I should be able to have one. Not something I subscribe to, but the interpretation is there.

KNOWITALL's avatar

I don’t think so and frankly think @seawuld575 interpreted the case correctly.
Anyone here who wants a gun can get one and there’s not much we can do about it now, like our San Fran jelly has said repeatedly. We are saturated in guns and criminals could care less what laws or restrictions are passed. The street corner will always have guns for cash.

chyna's avatar

@KNOWITALL I think you are probably correct in most cases that if you want a gun bad enough, you can get one. There are the few cases though, that if the person had to wait for a background check or for a 3 day wait period, things might have turned out differently. Case in point: the guy in Tulsa, OK who killed his surgeon, receptionist and another doctor because he was in pain from his surgery. He got the gun the same day he shot them. Maybe if there had been a three day grace period, he could’ve thought it through, been in less pain, or got help for the pain. We will never know.

janbb's avatar

Growing up in New Jersey, I have to say that “gun culture” is just not part of my life. I don’t think I’ve even seen a gun outside of a military museum or re-enactment. Obviously, there are guns and murders and hunters in season and some people must have them for protection but it is not a big part of the milieu or the conversations. I will be sorry if this changes.

janbb's avatar

And here’s a good article about what states may do to ameliorate some of the recent rulings:

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
gorillapaws's avatar

@seawulf575 ”...the state can direct them…regulate them…in the battle”

So you expect us to believe that the term “well regulated militia” meant that the state could direct their militia in battle, whereas if the founders didn’t go through the trouble of explicitly pointing out that the militia was “well regulated” that would have meant the militia forces would necessarily just run around without any command structure whatsoever? You’re claiming the founders explicitly wanted to ensure that any militia fighting in battles wouldn’t be fighting in a haphazard manner? really?

WhyNow's avatar

@janbb I meant to say in NJ cause you grew up in NJ.

WhyNow's avatar

@gorillapaws In short does the second amendment and the founders intent allow persons to defend themselves personally?

I am specifically thinking about that supermarket in NY when 10 black people like sheep
were gunned down when somebody could have stopped that massacre with their own gun.

I am pro background checks and wait times, but when a bureaucratic shuffle
impedes unduly gun ownership that’s the line I draw.

WhyNow's avatar

^^I am also pro gun use training, gun ownership responsibility, continuing training
by belonging to gun range etc.

gorillapaws's avatar

@WhyNow ”...when somebody could have stopped that massacre with their own gun.”

The “good guy with a gun” fantasy is unrealistic and moronic. It’s the tactical equivalent of believing Ayn Rand was a brilliant philosopher. If someone starts shooting up a business I’m in, I pray that some redneck doesn’t pull out his piece and start a firefight while I’m in there. That’s 2x as many bullets in the air and I’d rather not have to divide my attention from the shooter and the potentially-reckless, self-appointed “hero.”

For one thing, people who have high confidence that they’re well trained, probably aren’t. They can kill innocents and create confusion for authorities who the bad guy is. In an extreme situation with dozens of armed “good guys” (The NRA utopian wet dream for normal American life) imagine how that could play out when nobody knows who is good and who is bad. It adds to the pandemonium and chaos.

WhyNow's avatar

@gorillapaws Your ‘tactical’ assesement is that in the calm and orderly situation of a
mass shooting, a redneck might kill innocents and create confusion if he pulls a gun.

How long do mass shootings take? an hour? You would spend that hour praying
that you and your family don’t get shot by (horrid) a redneck. Got it.

zenvelo's avatar

@WhyNow The police won’t get involved when a shooter is active, why should a civilian?

WhyNow's avatar

@gorillapaws It’s nice to know that in a mass shooting you would stay calm and pray!

@zenvelo Not sure I get your Q. but self preservation can be a bitch when some people
defeat this instinct by using their hatred.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
seawulf575's avatar

@janbb And here’s a story of the good guy (gal) stopping a mass shooting because she was armed

Oh NO! Here’s another one

gorillapaws's avatar

@seawulf575 That second one was a woman shooting an unarmed burglar.

Smashley's avatar

@seawulf575 we can all find anecdotes

At West Freeway church, everyone had guns, including the first person shot dead as he drew on the shooter.

Hardly data. The data shows that, coinciding with a massive increase of guns in the country, death by firearm is now the most likely way for a child to die in America.

WhyNow's avatar

@gorillapaws You implying it was an unjustified shooting?.

@Smashley Anything in this ‘data’ show that criminals are
causing these ‘deaths by firearms’?

gorillapaws's avatar

@WhyNow It was probably a justified shooting, but it was not an example of a “good guy with a gun” preventing a mass shooting like he claimed. Furthermore, it’s entirely unclear if the gun was necessary in that situation.

If he’d broken into my home my wife would have ran away and called the cops. There’s a chance he would have made off with a laptop or something or been caught by the police. There’s also a good chance he would have skipped our house entirely because we have some security cameras and a dog which I suspect makes us much safer statistically than a firearm.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Smashley's avatar

@WhyNow – all reasons. Accidents, suicides, homicides. They just all happen to climb at the same time as gun ownership. A coincidence, I’m sure, but you’d still think the arming of the population would result in less death, since guns make you safer and all.

I know you’re like a “responsible gun owner” but the irresponsible arguments you’ve learned are the reason so many fucking idiots buy guns and make people die, usually their own friends/family.

seawulf575's avatar

@gorillapaws it IS an example of using a gun to protect yourself. and to say it was “probably” justified is garbage. It is a weak attempt to not admit guns have a purpose. The intruder forced his way into the house. The mother took her kids to the attic and the intruder followed them there. So now the questions:

Do you believe he had some innocent reason for being there?

Do you believe the woman should have asked the guy nicely to leave?

Do you believe she had any way of knowing if he was armed?

Do you believe she should have asked the intruder if he was armed before shooting him?

Now, I’m willing to bet she was not part of a well regulated militia, so do you believe she should have not been allowed to have a gun?

Do you believe that she could have foreseen all the things that happened that day when the family got the gun in the first place?

Do you believe the family should have had to predict something like this to convince the government they should be allowed to own a gun?

WhyNow's avatar

@seawulf575 I think you know the answers to those questions. Some people will
never change their minds. To them, politics and hatred has become a religion.
So if you are in danger of being shot… shut up and pray.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated
Response moderated
seawulf575's avatar

@Smashley Think about where most of the mass shootings happen. They happen where it is unlikely anyone will be armed to resist.

janbb's avatar

^^ Yeah, like Uvelda. ~~

ragingloli's avatar

Once all the “good guys with guns” start shooting each other, and all the “good guys with guns” start getting shot by the pigs, because neither can tell which one is the “bad guy with a gun”, I am going to laugh hysterically.

seawulf575's avatar

@janbb exactly. Who in an elementary school is going to be armed? You can force your way in and kill a bunch of people and get your 15 minutes of fame without the fear of someone shooting back until the cops get there, which could be a few minutes or more. And then, like in Uvelda, it depends on if the cops rush in or not.

gorillapaws's avatar

@seawulf575 ”it IS an example of using a gun to protect yourself.”

Correct. I was responding to the claim you made that it was an example of a good guy with a gun stopping a mass shooting. It’s not, It’s an example of a woman shooting an unarmed intruder in the face multiple times.

@seawulf575 _”…to say it was “probably” justified is garbage…”

Wait, what? I don’t know all of the facts of that case, I’m not a lawyer, I wasn’t there. Since you want to get way off track on this, I guess I’ll indulge you. First: there are 2 types of “justification” there’s the legal justification and the moral justification. It’s possible to be legally justified in shooting someone but not morally justified and the opposite in some places I would imagine.

I was using the term in the legal sense. Between castle doctrines, stand your ground laws and other legal principles of self-defense like when duty to retreat has been met or excepted for, based on the facts as I understood them, I would say the woman was “probably justified” in shooting the intruder in the face multiple times. There are other rules in play about only using the minimum amount of force necessary to protect yourself and others. Did she need to empty the clip into the guy’s face? I don’t know, I wasn’t there. It sounded like the intruder was begging for his life at one point and she was still shooting. It’s hard to fully understand all of the legal issues at play here as an outsider with incomplete information. Also I’m not a lawyer. So was the shooting legally justified? My answer remains “probably.” Law is complicated and I’m smart enough to understand that I’m not an expert on everything—especially the stuff I’m not an expert in.

Was she morally justified in shooting an unarmed man? I don’t know that either. If she didn’t have a gun in the first place, it’s certainly possible that she would have left the premises with her kids instead of hiding and fighting back (but I don’t know the architecture of her home or any of the other relevant details). It’s also possible that she could have used a less-lethal weapon for self-defense and accomplished the same goal. Or maybe just talk to him i.e. “Don’t hurt us, the Police will be here in 90 seconds. My purse is on the counter and has $300 in it. There’s still time to get away if you leave now!” Believe it or not, most burglars are after property and don’t want to be arrested. One might argue that morally all gun owners should have maximum deterrence to discourage trespassing/burglars, such as signs, security cameras, dogs, reinforced doors and windows, etc. Maybe she had all of these things.

One thing a gun does do is increase the odds that violence will be the outcome. If one is unarmed, they’re most likely running away (which is probably the best option in nearly every scenario). If one is armed, I suspect there will be many instances where they’ll decide to stand their ground when objectively, from a tactics assessment, running would be the wiser choice. For many people, guns narrow their thinking instead of expanding it.

@seawulf575 ”…It is a weak attempt to not admit guns have a purpose.”

Guns are designed to kill things effectively. Acknowledging that there are nuances and complexities in a self-defense shooting like this is not a denial of this fact.

@seawulf575 ”Do you believe he had some innocent reason for being there?”

No. He’s a burglar.

@seawulf575 ”Do you believe the woman should have asked the guy nicely to leave?”
Possibly. I wasn’t there. It might have been effective. If he knew someone was home, he might have moved on to the next house. Most burglars are looking to steal stuff when nobody is home. You have more time to steal stuff when the cops aren’t racing after you with guns drawn to defend a terrified mom and her kids. I’m not blaming her for not asking him to leave either. It’s possible she tried this and he ignored here, or that she believed being quiet was the best course of action. I’m answering your question—don’t misinterpret it as me second-guessing someone in that situation.

@seawulf575 ”Do you believe she had any way of knowing if he was armed?”
She knew he wasn’t holding a weapon, but likely didn’t know if he was in possession of a weapon. Living in a country with weak gun laws makes it more likely that other people are armed. This assumption wouldn’t be true in countries like Japan, where encountering an armed person is very unlikely.

@seawulf575 “Do you believe she should have asked the intruder if he was armed before shooting him?”
No. It’s a stupid question. One cannot trust the response, so it’s pointless to ask. That said, we are not legally permitted to shoot someone just because they’re armed. Home invasions have different rules, but generally, they have to have a weapon in their hand, otherwise, I would be legally justified in shooting anyone open-carrying saying “I fear for my life!” Would a verbal warning with the gun pointing at his face been sufficient to defend herself? The first shot? The second? I wasn’t there and I’m not going to second-guess her decisions. It’s possible that she was legally justified in her actions but exceeded her moral authority to do so in this instance.

@seawulf575 ”Now, I’m willing to bet she was not part of a well regulated militia, so do you believe she should have not been allowed to have a gun?”

My reading of the second amendment (and how it was interpreted for centuries) was that the federal government couldn’t disarm state militias. The pentagon can’t disarm the national guard of any particular state. The fear was a tyrannical federal government trampling the states especially with respect to preventing states from maintaining their slave patrol militias which were necessary to maintain the institution of slavery. I realize that conservative justices have recently started reimagining the Constitution in “fun new ways” that the founders never intended, but the language of the second amendment is clearly about well-regulated state militias and not about Bobo’s (or Mohamed’s—which shouldn’t make a difference, but probably does for many) right to own tanks and anti-aircraft MANPADs.

People have a right to own stuff unless prohibited by law. So if there’s not a prohibition against owning a revolver in her state, then it’s not illegal. Should there be a law banning handguns? Maybe. I think shotguns make the most sense from a self-defense standpoint in a home invasion scenario. They are easier to hit what you’re pointing at, are very intimidating, and the risk of having bullets going through walls into your neighbor’s home is greatly reduced. I dislike semi-automatic weapons in the hands of civilians. I’m more comfortable with allowing single action firearms with additional restrictions.

@seawulf575 ”Do you believe that she could have foreseen all the things that happened that day when the family got the gun in the first place?”

No. Did she need the gun to protect her family? Would other forms of deterrence been equally or more effective? Conservatives are driven by fear. There’s a long tradition of being terrified of the black man coming to get revenge on the white slave owner for raping his daughter. It’s the foundation of America’s gun culture. You can’t have slaves without guns. The reality is very different from the fear that inspires people to acquire small arsenals. One of my best friends in the world owns a couple dozen guns. Nobody is going to attack him or his family. His daughter is in greater danger from an accident with one of those weapons than a home intruder killing her. Of course no-one expects accidents, because they wouldn’t happen otherwise.

@seawulf575 ”Do you believe the family should have had to predict something like this to convince the government they should be allowed to own a gun?”

I don’t think this story proves anything—certainly not your claim that good guys with guns are a good way to resolve mass shootings. What if she’d used a flamethrower? Would that be good evidence to support people carrying flamethrowers for self-defense?

And let’s get back to the idea of a justified shooting. Wouldn’t you agree that the police were perfectly justified in shooting John Hurley? Is creating a society where everyone is armed and there are scenarios where it’s easy for misunderstandings to degenerate into firefights where every individual is legally justified in their actions, and everyone gets killed a good thing?

A man hears a car backfire, but believes it to be a gunshot. In good faith, he draws his weapon and takes cover. Another individual hears the car backfire and sees the man holding a gun behind cover with a woman that could be his target. He draws his AK and points at the man. Someone else sees a man with an assault rifle and thinks it’s an active shooter situation and calls 911… Can you see how such a scenario where lost of ordinary citizens—terrified for their safety (and possibly inspired by the fantasy of being called a hero) can quickly escalate into unintentional massacres? Is Kyle Rittenhouse the model we want for a safer America?

It’s why police wear uniforms and spend countless hours training, and why most countries on planet Earth don’t want that much firepower in the hands of jumpy, untrained civilians (who are very likely overconfident in their abilities in an active shooter situation).

seawulf575's avatar

@gorillapaws Your efforts to try legalizing whether it was justified or not are weak. Name one state in the union where you don’t have the right to defend yourself inside your own home. I’ll wait.

@gorillapaws “He’s a burglar.” Possibly, but that doesn’t mean he couldn’t easily move into rapist or murderer. It doesn’t really say he was a burglar. He was a home intruder. He rummaged around a bit and then found the woman and her kids. If he was just a burglar, he could have stolen what he wanted and then took off. He was much more.

@gorillapaws “Possibly. I wasn’t there. It might have been effective. If he knew someone was home, he might have moved on to the next house.” Tell you what, the next time someone breaks into your house when only your wife and kids are home (if you have them), tell them not to run, not to hide, just ask the intruder to leave. Yeah, that’ll work.

@gorillapaws your effort to try justifying your interpretation of the “well regulated militia” is garbage. You were already stating that you deemed that to be the most important part of the 2nd amendment. Had that been it, this lady and her kids would likely have been killed or seriously injured.

@gorillapaws “No. Did she need the gun to protect her family? Would other forms of deterrence been equally or more effective?” Did she need a gun? Apparently so. It protected her family. An intruder had broken into her home and tracked her and her kids into the attic. What other form of deterrence would have been equally or more effective? Oh yeah, asking him to leave. NOT! How about calling the cops? The husband did that while he was on the phone with his wife. The cops didn’t show up until after she shot the intruder, he left the house, got into his car and drove up the road. They found him in a neighbor’s yard. That took some time. He got shot 6 times. He didn’t run to his car. It took him some time to maneuver the car to the street and to start driving away and then to get out of the car to crawl into the yard. That was a good several minutes. Without the gun and armed only with good intent, the woman could have been beaten, killed, raped, any number of things. Because even after the cops showed up, they likely would not have just rushed into the house. So you could easily tack on another 10 minutes.

@gorillapaws On the last question you just side stepped. Didn’t actually address the question. The original question on this thread addressed the overturning of a NY law that required that people that wanted a gun had to show proof they needed a gun for self-defense. Your argument in favor of that law brings on this question, that you side-stepped. If the state controls who gets guns and the citizens have to show their need of the gun, isn’t that the same as saying they have to predict what violence might walk into their life and then have the government decide if it sounds realistic or not?

And your side-step contradicted itself. You bring up John Hurley (who was shot by a cop who thought he was an active shooter…an active shooter that had already ambushed another cop). And then you go onto a diatribe about a strawman argument of people facing off with each other because they hear a noise. And you close up by talking about how the cops are well trained and how they don’t need firepower in the hands of jumpy, untrained civilians. Yet in the John Hurley event, the “jumpy, untrained civilian” stopped the bad guy and the “well trained cop” killed him. ???

Have you ever actually seen a shooting? I have. I heard what I thought was a really bad backfiring engine. I looked outside and saw a car rolling to a stop on the main drag, behind a school bus. And then I saw a guy across the road walking up the road with a gun. He emptied a clip into the car, reloaded and emptied another clip into the car and then reloaded. I was the jumpy untrained civilian. I immediately grabbed the phone and called 911. I thought about getting my gun but realized it wouldn’t be the best play…he was too far up the road for a good and safe shot. I saw another guy across the street standing there with his pistol in his hand. He was watching the shooter, then walked away. I found out later he was a retired cop who realized his pistol was not the right weapon and went to get his high powered rifle instead. Before he could the cops were on the scene and the shooter ended up shooting himself. So you have 2 “jumpy, untrained” civilians that didn’t just grab their guns and start shooting. They didn’t put others in harms way, they didn’t act stupidly. So your entire picture of armed civilians is so far out to lunch as to be laughable.

Response moderated (Personal Attack)

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther