Obama Withdraws Judicial Nominee Blocked TWICE by Republicans.....

MMC said:

Well for one retailers were part of it. Did you think they should be made part of the package? How is it Right to sue the Gun Manufacturers for something that another individual does? Also when they are not involved in any sale?

Click to expand...

Let a judge and jury sort it out. I hate seeing blanket immunity handed to any industry.

Harshaw said:

Because they are no more responsible for what someone chooses to do with their product than GM is responsible for someone running down someone else with a Tahoe.

This is not difficult.

Click to expand...

Auto companies do not have blanket immunity. Gun manufacturers have a special deal few other industries have. At least that's how I see it.

calamity said:

Auto companies do not have blanket immunity. Gun manufacturers have a special deal few other industries have. At least that's how I see it.

Click to expand...

No different than Hammer Manufacturers tho. Still how would gun manufacturers be responsible for someone else going crazy with a gun?

calamity said:

Auto companies do not have blanket immunity. Gun manufacturers have a special deal few other industries have. At least that's how I see it.

Click to expand...

Auto makers are not responsible for misuse of their products.

Gun manufacturers are still responsible for negligence of manufacture and for design flaws which cause injury, just like any other manufacturer.

MMC said:

No different than Hammer Manufacturers tho. Still how would gun manufacturers be responsible for someone else going crazy with a gun?

Click to expand...

But there is no group representing the hammer industry called the "national hammer association" but there is one for gun manufacturers called the NRA: the "national rifle association"

samsmart said:

You could just as easily ask that about the Senators filibustering the appointment.

Click to expand...

Nope, doesn't work that way. The POTUS proposes the nominee, if Congress rejects the nominee or just won't hear it, the process sits and spins until the POTUS proposes an alternate nominee.

I do agree Congress should at least give the nominee a hearing, but they are under no process obligation to do so and such a rule change would be solely up to them.

Bori said:

I think I knew you on politico.com but under a different name ... stupidity like yours is uncommon ... ironically, my response to you is contained in your post: "his second term" ... that's right, he's President of the United States, the first Democrat to be elected twice with over 50% of the vote, and he's Commander-in-Chief of the mightiest military force the world has known, he sleeps in the WH (when he's in town), you pay his salary ... and all you have are a couple of goldfish ... Now will you crawl into your little hole?

Click to expand...

Are you quite finished? No one cares about how much a socialist is in love with Obama.

MaggieD said:

I think her thoughts about holding gun manufacturers responsible for gun violence sealed her fate. She must be an attorney.

Click to expand...

anti gun nutcases realized that they cannot ban guns in most states so they tried to bankrupt gun makers with numerous frivolous lawsuits filed by entities that don't have to bear the costs of the litigation because those entities impose the costs on the taxpayers. She is a scumbag and was rightfully flushed down the toilet. I also believe the disingenuous dems blocked the seating of a far more qualified Bush nominee for that seat so

Paybacks are a HALLIGAN

good riddance.

Unitedwestand13 said:

But there is no group representing the hammer industry called the "national hammer association" but there is one for gun manufacturers called the NRA: the "national rifle association"

Click to expand...

And your point is?

Unitedwestand13 said:

But there is no group representing the hammer industry called the "national hammer association" but there is one for gun manufacturers called the NRA: the "national rifle association"

Click to expand...

Well technically that's Not True. The Hells Angels actually Endorse Ballpeen Hammers. They just don't go to Washington DC to lobby for anything. :lol:

Harshaw said:

Auto makers are not responsible for misuse of their products.

Gun manufacturers are still responsible for negligence of manufacture and for design flaws which cause injury, just like any other manufacturer.

Click to expand...

I see it a bit like cigarette companies: a product which even when used as intended kills. Sounds like a lawyer's wet dream. Bush signing an immunity agreement shows a lot about what he was about: protecting the makers of harmful products from legal reprecussions.

ReformCollege said:

Are you quite finished? No one cares about how much a socialist is in love with Obama.

Click to expand...

sorry I missed this earlier ... I'm not a big Obama fan ... in fact, I think of him as a moderate Republican (yes, once there was such an animal), then there's Guantanamo, drones, caving time and time again, and on and on ... but given a choice between Romney and the Republicans and Obama and the Dems, it was an easy call ... But you need to learn not to jump to conclusions ... have a good one ...

calamity said:

I see it a bit like cigarette companies: a product which even when used as intended kills. Sounds like a lawyer's wet dream. Bush signing an immunity agreement shows a lot about what he was about: protecting the makers of harmful products from legal reprecussions.

Click to expand...

Entirely false equivalency, and silly mischaracterization of Bush's intent.

Harshaw said:

Entirely false equivalency, and silly mischaracterization of Bush's intent.

Click to expand...

Tobacco and guns, both are as American as apple pie and going to grandma's for Christmas.

MMC said:

Well you asked a dishonest question as I stated She was Anti Gun.

Click to expand...

You also said she was against the Constitution, specifically the 2nd Amendment, and I asked for you to provide evidence. Your evidence was a lawsuit she pursued as part of her job, a lawsuit which had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

Then U tried to play like she wasn't Anti Gun.

Click to expand...

I did no such thing. All I said is you have yet to provide any tangible proof. A bunch of Senators and Republican media spouting rhetoric is not an example.

Course you were also the one that said you couldn't find anything on this woman at all.

Click to expand...

Again, false. I never said I couldn't find anything on this woman, I said I couldn't find anything to suggest she was against the 2nd Amendment.

When clearly there is all kind of stuff out there on her.

Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for you to produce any of it.

While I am sure all those liberal sources are saying she favors the Second

Click to expand...

I don't need any "liberal" sources, I have her direct testimony which says she supports the ruling of the Supreme Court on the matter.

But as usual you libs look to deflect when coming out the box.

Click to expand...

Excuse me for a moment, as I laugh out loud at you.

Your focus was on her case over the manufacturers out of New York. My case was she was Anti Gun and an Obama Puppet.

Click to expand...

Again, MY focus was your direct words of "Stopping any attorney that don't support and believe in the Constitution despite saying otherwise. Is a plus for the Country. Not a detriment. Perhaps you should read up on her and seeing how she would play with the Second Amendment and what shall not be infringed upon." and asking you to support it. Which you have still failed to do.

There is no getting round the fact that she is Anti Gun and Anti 2nd Amendment. Despite what she said.

Click to expand...

:lamo

So you ignore her EXACT words on the subject and instead focus on something you have yet to produce a single solid piece of evidence to support. Amazing.

Harshaw said:

Speaking of *sigh*, that does not mean what you REWROTE IT INTO meaning.

And yes, it's an argument which has gone on for decades, and you're on the side of it which is 100% wrong, in every way it can be wrong. And after all of this, I have no reason to chalk it up to being an "honest mistake."




I never claimed that it did. In fact, I explicitly said the arguments were elsewhere to be found. Can you get through a post without lying about something?




No, there aren't. There was never the slightest peep of your "argument" before 1940.

More lies. :roll:




No, that goes all the way back the explicit statements of the Founders and the Framers, as well as comments in federal and Supreme Court decisions throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, including -- INCLUDING -- US v. Miller.

For you, is this ignorance? Dishonesty? Probably a combination of both, motivated by the latter.




Incorrect, and you again attribute to me something I didn't say. I said your interpretation was wrong. It is.




Oh, you blame ME for YOU accusing me of saying something I did not say. That's on no one but you. Holy flirking snit, the depth of your dishonesty sinks even further.




Oh, wow -- you're sobbing and lying at the same time. :lamo



Oh, you poooooor thing. What's the problem -- accustomed to message boards where people can't see through your dishonest tactics? It all does seem quite practiced, so I assume this isn't your first rodeo.

Unfortunately, when you play the game, you don't get to choose the opposing team.

Click to expand...

:lamo

It's been a long time since I encountered someone this delusional, and the last time I did so, the other person had yet to reach their 18th birthday. You come into a thread to start an argument completely unrelated to the thread, accuse me of dishonesty when I CLEARLY was willing to use any interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in my point, falsely accuse me of engaging in a logical fallacy and then have the audacity to whine when your troll card is called.

It's clear you are not interested in any reasonable or rational discussion. The sad thing is you're obviously more intelligent than MMC, and yet you'd rather act in such a silly manner, using childish insults which have been clearly proven untrue. Instead of wasting everyone's time acting like a child, how about you actually engage in the thread discussion? It seems far more productive than the two of us accusing each other of being dishonest. After all, while I am new here, the rules have made me believe this forum is more about mature debate and not about childish name-calling.

So let's try this again. I disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Many others do as well. But whether we use your interpretation or my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant to the question I originally asked, which is how the lawsuit in question is in violation of either interpretation. Now, do you have any opinions on that matter?

calamity said:

I see it a bit like cigarette companies: a product which even when used as intended kills. Sounds like a lawyer's wet dream. Bush signing an immunity agreement shows a lot about what he was about: protecting the makers of harmful products from legal reprecussions.

Click to expand...

that's stupid. using a gun properly often preserves the life of the user.

why should beretta be sued by assholes using public tax dollars when some gang banger shoots another gangbanger with a stolen beretta or maybe a Glock. You see, those assholes never proved any negligence by the makers nor did they demonstrate whose guns were "falling" into the wrong hands.

Slyfox696 said:

You also said she was against the Constitution, specifically the 2nd Amendment, and I asked for you to provide evidence. Your evidence was a lawsuit she pursued as part of her job, a lawsuit which had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

I did no such thing. All I said is you have yet to provide any tangible proof. A bunch of Senators and Republican media spouting rhetoric is not an example.

Again, false. I never said I couldn't find anything on this woman, I said I couldn't find anything to suggest she was against the 2nd Amendment.

I'm still waiting for you to produce any of it.

I don't need any "liberal" sources, I have her direct testimony which says she supports the ruling of the Supreme Court on the matter.

Excuse me for a moment, as I laugh out loud at you.

Again, MY focus was your direct words of "Stopping any attorney that don't support and believe in the Constitution despite saying otherwise. Is a plus for the Country. Not a detriment. Perhaps you should read up on her and seeing how she would play with the Second Amendment and what shall not be infringed upon." and asking you to support it. Which you have still failed to do.

:lamo

So you ignore her EXACT words on the subject and instead focus on something you have yet to produce a single solid piece of evidence to support. Amazing.


:lamo

It's been a long time since I encountered someone this delusional, and the last time I did so, the other person had yet to reach their 18th birthday. You come into a thread to start an argument completely unrelated to the thread, accuse me of dishonesty when I CLEARLY was willing to use any interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in my point, falsely accuse me of engaging in a logical fallacy and then have the audacity to whine when your troll card is called.

It's clear you are not interested in any reasonable or rational discussion. The sad thing is you're obviously more intelligent than MMC, and yet you'd rather act in such a silly manner, using childish insults which have been clearly proven untrue. Instead of wasting everyone's time acting like a child, how about you actually engage in the thread discussion? It seems far more productive than the two of us accusing each other of being dishonest. After all, while I am new here, the rules have made me believe this forum is more about mature debate and not about childish name-calling.

So let's try this again. I disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Many others do as well. But whether we use your interpretation or my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant to the question I originally asked, which is how the lawsuit in question is in violation of either interpretation. Now, do you have any opinions on that matter?

Click to expand...

suing gun makers for guns being misused by others is nothing more than a backdoor attempt to bankrupt gun makers and thus deprive citizens from obtaining firearms

Yes that asshole was against the second amendment. EVERYONE who supports and pushes such lawsuits are anti gun turds.

TurtleDude said:

suing gun makers for guns being misused by others is nothing more than a backdoor attempt to bankrupt gun makers and thus deprive citizens from obtaining firearms

Click to expand...

So when I sue McDonalds because I spilled the hot coffee on myself, is that a backdoor attempt to bankrupt McDonalds and deprive citizens of their right to freedom of expression?

Probably not, but it makes as much sense.

Yes that asshole was against the second amendment. EVERYONE who supports and pushes such lawsuits are anti gun turds.

Click to expand...

You do realize SHE didn't pursue the case, but rather the state of New York pursued the case, correct? And that when the case was dismissed, the dismissal said nothing about being dismissed with regards to the 2nd Amendment.

You don't seem to know very much about this. I'll admit, I'm fairly ignorant to it as well, but I seem to understand it a little better than you.

calamity said:

Tobacco and guns, both are as American as apple pie and going to grandma's for Christmas.

Click to expand...

Feel better?

Slyfox696 said:

So when I sue McDonalds because I spilled the hot coffee on myself, is that a backdoor attempt to bankrupt McDonalds and deprive citizens of their right to freedom of expression?

Probably not, but it makes as much sense.

You do realize SHE didn't pursue the case, but rather the state of New York pursued the case, correct? And that when the case was dismissed, the dismissal said nothing about being dismissed with regards to the 2nd Amendment.

You don't seem to know very much about this. I'll admit, I'm fairly ignorant to it as well, but I seem to understand it a little better than you.

Click to expand...

If 40 or 50 leftwing mayors engaged in lawsuits against McDonalds for such actions then I would say yes.

the dismissals had nothing to do with the second amendment but the lawsuits were clearly designed to interfere with the lawful ownership of firearms

you can pretend you understand it better than me. You would be wrong. You can look around the entire United states for decades and I doubt you will find someone who actually knows more about this subject than I do.

Slyfox696 said:

:lamo

It's been a long time since I encountered someone this delusional, and the last time I did so, the other person had yet to reach their 18th birthday. You come into a thread to start an argument completely unrelated to the thread, accuse me of dishonesty when I CLEARLY was willing to use any interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in my point, falsely accuse me of engaging in a logical fallacy and then have the audacity to whine when your troll card is called.

Click to expand...

I have not "whined" even once. You, however, have lied repeatedly, and you're still doing it.

What I did was point out your question-begging and erroneous, dishonest interpretation of the 2A. And yes, indeed, you did beg the question. Which is related entirely to the way you choose to argue in this thread.

If you don't want to have your weaknesses pointed out, there are plenty of sites where you can post and everyone will agree with you in lock step. This isn't one.

It's clear you are not interested in any reasonable or rational discussion. The sad thing is you're obviously more intelligent than MMC, and yet you'd rather act in such a silly manner, using childish insults which have been clearly proven untrue. Instead of wasting everyone's time acting like a child, how about you actually engage in the thread discussion? It seems far more productive than the two of us accusing each other of being dishonest. After all, while I am new here, the rules have made me believe this forum is more about mature debate and not about childish name-calling.

Click to expand...

Oh, boo-hoo-hoo. I called no "names." What I have said is 100% about what you posted. The one who's "acting like a child" is the one who is protesting way, way, way too much. (That's you.)

So let's try this again. I disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Many others do as well.

Click to expand...

Your interpretation is wrong in every way it can be wrong. This is a matter of historical, linguistic, and legal fact.

But whether we use your interpretation or my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant to the question I originally asked, which is how the lawsuit in question is in violation of either interpretation. Now, do you have any opinions on that matter?

Click to expand...

It doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment, nor do I care. What I cared about was your dishonestly-worded question. Which is the only thing I commented on, your dishonest attributions to me notwithstanding.

TurtleDude said:

If 40 or 50 leftwing mayors engaged in lawsuits against McDonalds for such actions then I would say yes.

the dismissals had nothing to do with the second amendment but the lawsuits were clearly designed to interfere with the lawful ownership of firearms

Click to expand...

No, they weren't. If I'm not mistaken, the original case dealt with illegally purchased firearms.

You would be wrong. You can look around the entire United states for decades and I doubt you will find someone who actually knows more about this subject than I do.

Click to expand...

Well, good then, you can explain it to me. What happened? How did this case come about? What exactly was Halligan's influence in all of it?

Harshaw said:

I have not "whined" even once. You, however, have lied repeatedly, and you're still doing it.

What I did was point out your question-begging and erroneous, dishonest interpretation of the 2A. And yes, indeed, you did beg the question. Which is related entirely to the way you choose to argue in this thread.

If you don't want to have your weaknesses pointed out, there are plenty of sites where you can post and everyone will agree with you in lock step. This isn't one.




Oh, boo-hoo-hoo. I called no "names." What I have said is 100% about what you posted. The one who's "acting like a child" is the one who is protesting way, way, way too much. (That's you.)




Your interpretation is wrong in every way it can be wrong. This is a matter of historical, linguistic, and legal fact.

Click to expand...

:roll:

Since you actually did comment on the thread right after all of this, I won't repeat myself for the third or fourth time. I disagree completely with you, and I have supported my argument with evidence, but it's obvious you aren't interested, so consider it dropped.

It doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment, nor do I care.

Click to expand...

Great. Thank you for your contribution.

What I cared about was your dishonestly-worded question.

Click to expand...

Which I later was willing to amend, thus proving it was not intended to be dishonest in anyway. I have explained this, if you would actually care to take time to listen/comprehend.

Slyfox696 said:

Since you actually did comment on the thread right after all of this, I won't repeat myself for the third or fourth time. I disagree completely with you, and I have supported my argument with evidence, but it's obvious you aren't interested, so consider it dropped.

Click to expand...

What "evidence"? Your erroneous pap about "hundreds of years" and "thousands of people" agreeing with you? That's not "evidence"; that's merely your claim -- and I already told you you're wrong on that, too, and chances are, you've never even bothered to look to see if you're right.

Your interpretation, as I said earlier, did not exist in any written form before 1940. Mine goes all the way back to the founding of the country with the support of the men who did so. (MMC was kind enough to post a number of actual quotes to that effect.)

Great. Thank you for your contribution.

Click to expand...

I post as I see fit; your "thanks" are neither necessary nor even appropriate.

Which I later was willing to amend, thus proving it was not intended to be dishonest in anyway. I have explained this, if you would actually care to take time to listen/comprehend.

Click to expand...

Well, good for you. You were "willing" to back away from a dishonest question after pitching a fit about being called on it.

the failed nominee attempted to advance a legal theory that gun makers, wholesalers and retailers of firearms should be held liable for ILLEGALLY owned handguns in the state of NY this attempt was based on Public Nuisance and did not attempt to prove that the makers (who can only sell to licensed wholesalers or dealers) actually provided handguns to any banned entity. this theory would hold makers and wholesalers liable for the illegal acts of third parties.

For example, Halligan supported New York’s efforts to hold the manufacturers of handguns liable for criminal acts committed with handguns. Those lawsuits represented an activist effort to use the courts to solve a societal problem. When Congress was considering shutting those lawsuits down, Halligan gave a speech in which she noted how the “dynamics of our rule of law enables enviable social progress and mobility,” a formulation that sounds like it’s from the living Constitution hymnal.


The American Spectator : Caitlin Halligan Need Not Apply


Halligan and the Second Amendment - By Gary Marx - Bench Memos - National Review Online

Harshaw said:

What "evidence"? Your erroneous pap about "hundreds of years" and "thousands of people" agreeing with you? That's not "evidence"; that's merely your claim -- and I already told you you're wrong on that, too, and chances are, you've never even bothered to look to see if you're right. Your interpretation, as I said earlier, did not exist in any written form before 1940. Mine goes all the way back to the founding of the country with the support of the men who did so. (MMC was kind enough to post a number of actual quotes to that effect.)

Click to expand...

"If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security." - Alexander Hamilton
"For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well organized and armed militia is their best security." - Thomas Jefferson
"We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done." - Thomas Jefferson

Obviously there are many quotes from our Founding Fathers on gun ownership (so there is no need for you to post others, I'll concede there will be quotes which cover many angles on the issue), but it's clear from the comments of these two, at the very least, there were people who believed in a well-regulated militia for the defense of our country.

US vs. Cruikshank said:

The Court held, however, that because the right to keep and bear arms existed independent of the Constitution, and the Second Amendment guaranteed only that the right shall not be infringed by Congress, the federal government had no power to punish a violation of the right by a private individual; rather, citizens had "to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens" of their right to keep and bear arms to the police power of the state.

Click to expand...

Federal Cases Regarding the Second Amendment

From this, we can see the 2nd Amendment was NOT interpreted as an unabridged right to own any and all firearms a citizen wanted, it merely regulated the federal government. When we combine this with the previous statements, we can make the argument the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to prevent the federal government from limiting state governments to form their own militias. The idea the 2nd Amendment only limited the federal government (and did not mean universal rights to a gun) was furthered in Presser v. Illinois (and also in Miller v. Texas, though I'm only quoting one):

We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.

Click to expand...

So we've now established the belief in the existence of a trained and well-regulated militia for the defense of our country, and we have Supreme Court cases which show the intent of the 2nd Amendment (at the time of the rulings) was not about granting unabridged rights to own a gun, but rather to protect the concept of a militia from being undermined by the federal government.

Which would make my original statement "a private citizen being able to own a gun for the purpose of assembling in a state militia for defense against foreign enemies" a rather valid interpretation, one which is supported by direct quotes from Founding Fathers and rulings in Supreme Court cases, and my claim of being supported by thousands of people (which can be found with a simple Google search, I'm sure) and hundreds of years much stronger.

I post as I see fit; your "thanks" are neither necessary nor even appropriate.

Click to expand...

All the same, I thank you anyways.

Well, good for you. You were "willing" to back away from a dishonest question after pitching a fit about being called on it.

Click to expand...

Untrue. The moment you lodged your complaint, I adjusted my question. Your first post to me was to accuse me of begging the question (which, by the way, begging the question is where you support your position by assuming to be true that which you are trying to prove to be true...asking how a lawsuit relates to the 2nd Amendment, regardless of whether you agree with my interpretation, could never be begging the question as I am not attempting to assert any position at the time of the question, but rather trying to understand how the two are related....as I said, I did not commit the fallacy. You MIGHT be able to assert I committed the fallacy of the loaded question, but loaded question is not the same thing as begging the question), and when I asked you to explain, it was then you explained how you took issue with my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The moment you did so, I was willing to reframe my question to fit any valid interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

This will be my last post to you. I have attempted to regain some civility in our discussion, and you have not shown any intention to reciprocate. I hope I have now satisfied your desire for more concrete evidence (which was a fair criticism) of my interpretation and my claim, but if your posts towards me in this thread are an example of future postings from you, I will not expect you to like/agree/recognize them as valid. But I have grown weary of coming into a thread for an honest debate, and have my integrity attacked by someone who has already admitted no interest in discussing the topic. And to head off your next comment, I am not crying or whining nor will I post on other forums. I will simply ignore any further post from you which is made in the same aggressive manner your previous ones towards me have been. If you wish to discuss this topic in a mature fashion, I'll be happy to do so. But I will not engage any further in base 2nd Amendment arguments, nor will I reply to any other derogatory remarks.

TurtleDude said:

the failed nominee attempted to advance a legal theory that gun makers, wholesalers and retailers of firearms should be held liable for ILLEGALLY owned handguns in the state of NY this attempt was based on Public Nuisance and did not attempt to prove that the makers (who can only sell to licensed wholesalers or dealers) actually provided handguns to any banned entity. this theory would hold makers and wholesalers liable for the illegal acts of third parties.

For example, Halligan supported New York’s efforts to hold the manufacturers of handguns liable for criminal acts committed with handguns. Those lawsuits represented an activist effort to use the courts to solve a societal problem. When Congress was considering shutting those lawsuits down, Halligan gave a speech in which she noted how the “dynamics of our rule of law enables enviable social progress and mobility,” a formulation that sounds like it’s from the living Constitution hymnal.

Click to expand...

Nothing you've said here is any different than what I've already known. However, I am very curious about your statement of "Halligan supported New York’s efforts". How do you determine she supported this, as opposed to simply doing the job she was supposed to do. Furthermore, how does allowing gun manufacturers to be held liable affect the 2nd Amendment, regardless of the interpretation? The 2nd Amendment says nothing about gun manufacturers, it only discusses the rights of a citizen to own a gun.