tennis, club, lessons, indoor tennis, camp
27east.com

Story - News

Dec 11, 2015 4:21 PMPublication: The East Hampton Press

Zeldin Introduces Bill Aiming To Prevent Suspected Terrorists From Buying Guns And Explosives

Dec 15, 2015 4:02 PM

In the wake of the recent terrorist attacks in San Bernardino, California, U.S. Representative Lee Zeldin has introduced legislation that aims to prevent suspected terrorists from buying legal firearms and explosives, although denials would require a court order.

The bill, titled the Protect America Act of 2015, is similar to one that failed in the Senate last week. It would rely on the federal terrorist watch list and no-fly list for information about suspected terrorists, but would allow those denied weapons purchases because they are on one of the lists to appeal in court.

The terrorist watch list and no-fly list have been the subject of much criticism since they were instituted by the Bush administration after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, as critics say many people on the lists are not believed to be a danger to society.

Mr. Zeldin did not support a bill recently introduced by his House colleague Peter King that called for an automatic denial of gun purchases to people on the no-fly list and terrorist watch lists, arguing that the law would violate the rights of people placed on those lists who pose no threat.

His bill would require the attorney general to petition a court to deny firearms purchases to those identified on the lists as actual suspected terrorists.

A subsection of Mr. Zeldin’s bill, HR 4237, also calls for a review of the existing terrorist watch and no-fly lists. It would require the attorney general to review both lists within 90 days of the law’s passage and make the necessary adjustments by identifying suspected terrorists and removing the names of those who have been added to the list in error. Those people have included, according to the congressman, the late Senator Ted Kennedy, other members of Congress, U.S. marshals, and even U.S. service members.

“Some people are on that list just because you want to talk to them because they are a former college roommate of a witness. It doesn’t mean that there is actually something wrong with that person,” Mr. Zeldin said. “Sometimes their name is placed in the system just to help law enforcement track someone down.”

There are approximately 47,000 names on the federal no-fly list, and about 1.1 million on the terrorist watch list, he said.

If the law were to pass, those on a watch list considered suspicious would be contacted by the Department of Justice and told that they may be barred from purchasing firearms and explosives, Mr. Zeldin said. They would also be informed that they can hire an attorney to litigate the issue.

The attorney general can delay the transfer of firearms for up to 72 hours, 90 days for explosives, while the investigation takes place to either clear or confirm the suspect’s possible terror ties.

Anyone can legally purchase many types of long guns, such as shotguns and rifles. Permits are required only for concealed handguns in most states.

Permits from the State Department of Labor and approvals from the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are required for the purchase of explosives, which are frequently used legally by coal miners, farmers, at fireworks shows and on movie sets. They are also commonly used by workers at construction and demolition sites and by law enforcement.

An instant federal background check is required of anyone purchasing any firearm. The process, which takes only a few minutes, is conducted by a dealer with a federal firearms license, usually at a gun shop. Yet these background checks may not prevent guns from getting into the hands of suspected terrorists.

Federal instant background checks reveal only criminal records, such as felony convictions, adjudicated domestic violence incidents, any court-ordered committals and fugitives from justice. These people cannot legally purchase firearms.

But some have argued that a new federal law is necessary because many suspected terrorists do not have criminal records, and the instant background check would not prevent them from walking out of a gun shop with a firearm.

If the law were to be enacted, the attorney general would be required to submit to Congress a written report on the steps taken to review and correct the terrorist watch and no-fly lists.

“I would advocate to identify means to make that process as efficient as possible,” Mr. Zeldin said.

You have read 1 of 7 free articles this month.

Yes! I'll try a one-month
Premium Membership
for just 99¢!
CLICK HERE

Already a subscriber? LOG IN HERE

Lee Zeldin, in the same press release, as reported by other outlets, called for a moratorium on Syrian refugees....
By Brandon Quinn (113), Hampton Bays on Dec 11, 15 4:53 PM
2 members liked this comment
The 'good guy with a gun' myth: Column
James Hatch 11:50 a.m. EST December 11, 2015

Expecting untrained civilians to shoot down terrorists is recipe for more dead innocents.


After the slaughter of 14 Americans in San Bernardino, Calif., when two people armed with high-powered rifles and handguns ambushed unsuspecting Americans in a conference room, United States senator and Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz held a press conference to issue a familiar refrain we ...more
By Mr. Z (9530), North Sea on Dec 12, 15 2:37 AM
Z, this article is pure speculation. There are no real world experiences cited to back it up. Where has it happened that a wild gunfight broke out and innocent people got caught in the crossfire? To my knowledge it has not. Probably because wackos pick locations where they are less likely to encounter armed resistance. (I'm sure someone will call that a myth too.)


"When the bullets are flying, determining “who's who in the zoo” is hard." True but doing nothing is far ...more
By dnice (1998), Hampton Bays on Dec 12, 15 12:18 PM
The author is a Senior Chief Petty Officer.

'Nuff said.
By Mr. Z (9530), North Sea on Dec 12, 15 6:26 PM
"'Nuff said?" Sez you!

Do you really think those are sufficient credentials to leave people defenseless is the face of a murderous assault?

Those of us who don't travel with a protective shell to cower in, would like something out than a rosary or a prayer shawl to comfort us while we're hiding in a closet, a bathroom or a class room wait for the SWAT team to arrive.
By Frank Wheeler (1735), Northampton on Dec 13, 15 3:06 AM
1 member liked this comment
So a 26 year Navy veteran having his femur blown in half is not enough for you, Frank?

The nerve of some people...
Dec 13, 15 4:50 AM appended by Mr. Z
And, if that's what you took away from it, you need to read the op-ed again. A rater petty response, IMO.
By Mr. Z (9530), North Sea on Dec 13, 15 4:50 AM
Being a Senior Chief Petty Officer doesn't make his opinion weigh any heavier. Can't answer my questions except to suggest he is an unchallenged expert because he is military. Why would having his femur blown off make him an expert?
By dnice (1998), Hampton Bays on Dec 13, 15 2:42 PM
His TWENTY FIVE YEARS of being trained for [expletive deleted] fire fights make him an expert. And YES, his rank does grant him weight.

Knock of the nonsense. Do you have any idea what it takes to achieve his rank?

"Advancement to senior chief petty officer is similar to that of chief petty officer. It carries requirements of time in service, superior evaluation scores, and peer review. In the Navy, it is the first promotion that is based entirely on proven leadership performance; ...more
By Mr. Z (9530), North Sea on Dec 13, 15 4:39 PM
I see you conveniently ignored my questions. Instead you are using this example of an "expert" to further your position of gun control. if bullets start flying where I am, I hope someone else certainly is armed and is willing to get involved.
By dnice (1998), Hampton Bays on Dec 13, 15 6:04 PM
I suggest you read the op-ed. Again.

Apparently you have no idea what the man has to say.
Dec 13, 15 8:16 PM appended by Mr. Z
Ah, let's have mercy. The issue is: it's very damn likely that if you don't get shot by the "wacko" with a gun, it's damn likely you'll get shot by the "good guy" with the gun. The myth trundles on...
By Mr. Z (9530), North Sea on Dec 13, 15 8:16 PM
Your arrogance is apparent Z. I understand the op ed. I don't agree with it. But hey, no one is as smart as you, I get it.
By dnice (1998), Hampton Bays on Dec 13, 15 10:07 PM
If you understand the op-ed, you wouldn't be posting your comments.

The man fully believes in the Second Amendment. The man believes you should be armed. If you don't think that armed, untrained people in a crisis situation is a recipe for disaster and friendly fire deaths, it's OK.

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it no matter how foolish.
By Mr. Z (9530), North Sea on Dec 14, 15 5:31 AM
C'mon Z, that's not why you posted it. Stop the twist act.
By dnice (1998), Hampton Bays on Dec 14, 15 8:40 AM
Oh, pray tell, PLEASE do tell us the "truth" as to why I posted it.



“Declare your jihad on thirteen enemies you cannot see: egoism, arrogance, conceit, selfishness, greed, lust, intolerance, anger, lying, cheating, gossiping and slandering. If you can master and destroy them, then you will be read to fight the enemy you can see.”

~ Al-Ghazali
By Mr. Z (9530), North Sea on Dec 15, 15 7:17 PM
Because you are anti 2A.
By dnice (1998), Hampton Bays on Dec 15, 15 7:43 PM
Bull****.
By Mr. Z (9530), North Sea on Dec 15, 15 8:34 PM
So you are pro second amendment?
By dnice (1998), Hampton Bays on Dec 15, 15 9:09 PM
1 member liked this comment
So Z what's the answer? Are you pro 2nd amendment?
By razza5350 (1860), East Hampton on Dec 17, 15 6:13 AM
"Any tool may be a weapon. But, not every weapon is a tool."
By Mr. Z (9530), North Sea on Dec 18, 15 5:41 AM
Way to sidestep the question Z. You are a heck of dancer.
By dnice (1998), Hampton Bays on Dec 18, 15 12:33 PM
1 member liked this comment
Seems like a common sense approach to a very real problem. No wonder the leftists here are quick to dismiss it.
By bigfresh (3030), north sea on Dec 12, 15 10:10 AM
1 member liked this comment
They have no real solutions
By Nukiepoo (103), Southampton on Dec 12, 15 11:20 AM
The problem is it's a b**l sh*t bill, like everything else Zeldin does. If he really wanted to do something to protect the country he should have supported Peter King's bill which had some teeth. Instead he puts out a watered down, NRA friendly smoke screen and panders to the ignorant about what a great job he's doing.
By bird (635), Sag Harbor on Dec 12, 15 12:14 PM
3 members liked this comment
Bird, the NRA was against the bill for good reason IMO. What is to stop the gov't from labeling anyone a terrorist as a means of denying them firearms ownership? We already have laws on the books similar to the proposed legislation barring criminals from owning guns yet they are still able to get them. If we just enforced the laws we already have we could greatly reduce violent crime and gun related deaths.
By dnice (1998), Hampton Bays on Dec 12, 15 12:21 PM
The "no-fly" list is wrought with mistakes and errors. It is sensible to require the appropriate agency for the no-fly list ensure that it is accurate. Kings bill did not require this.
By But I'm a blank! (1274), Hampton Bays on Dec 12, 15 1:36 PM
1 member liked this comment
Anyone who posts here and has the temerity to dismiss Mr. Quinn's eloquently stated opinion on the danger of having untrained "good guys with guns" in a mass shooting should just stop talking now. Here is a man with 25 years in the military who has the training and experience to be one of those good guys and he explains very clearly what a difficult chaotic experience a gunfight is even for those with experience and training.

I have yet to come across any professionals with military or ...more
By Arnold Timer (271), Sag Harbor on Dec 12, 15 7:28 PM
1 member liked this comment
Nonsense Arnold. What exactly do you do that would bring you in contact with said experts? What makes Quinn such an expert? Military experience alone? His opinion is only "eloquent" because it backs your narrative. Seriously Arnold, what makes you an expert in this conversation? Do you own firearms? Have you ever fired one? My guess is you have only read on the subject.
By dnice (1998), Hampton Bays on Dec 13, 15 3:00 PM
You and Mr. Hatch are so right. America is not the Wild West, at least not yet.
The proliferation of guns hasn't made us safer, it's made us less safe. And further, whatever happened to Home of the BRAVE? Kind of a cynical joke now with all these scared little chickenhawks cowering in corners. As if they're ever going to be in any danger except perhaps in their own homes where there's a gun or two handy.
By June Bug (1479), SOUTHAMPTON on Dec 14, 15 6:48 PM
I mistakenly attributed Mr. Hatch's words to Mr. Quinn. I apologize for the error.
By Arnold Timer (271), Sag Harbor on Dec 12, 15 7:31 PM
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By thediner (11), east hampton on Dec 13, 15 8:12 PM
1 member liked this comment
So let's do nothing? Don't interfere, someone may get hurt? That is very inviting to anyone who would plan a mass shooting. God forbid anyone be put into a position where they have to draw a firearm to stop a threat but better to try than to do nothing.
By dnice (1998), Hampton Bays on Dec 13, 15 10:13 PM
News flash: This is not the Wild West. We have law enforcement in America, not cowboy justice or citizen militias. No mass shooter is going to be deterred no matter how many people have guns. And stop being such a chickenheart---nobody's going to bother you.
By June Bug (1479), SOUTHAMPTON on Dec 14, 15 6:54 PM
Chickenheart?

Wouldn't that label apply to your irrational fear of firearms?
By ChrisDiPetta (34), on Dec 14, 15 6:57 PM
Hey June Bug, what is the average response team of the police? Don;t worry, the gov't will save you.
Dec 14, 15 9:21 PM appended by dnice
response time
By dnice (1998), Hampton Bays on Dec 14, 15 9:21 PM
Maybe you should take up residence in a country where there is no government or rule of law, and where you can take the law into your own hands.
By June Bug (1479), SOUTHAMPTON on Dec 14, 15 9:55 PM
Can't answer a reasonable question so you resort to fantasy? How liberal of you. Good luck with your reliance on big government.
By dnice (1998), Hampton Bays on Dec 14, 15 10:16 PM
The US Constitution only provides for a WELL REGULATED militia to protect the security of the state. Not for an unregulated gun in the hands of every single citizen. That only happened in the pursuit of profit by corporations that make guns, the same ones that benefitted from the deregulation promulgated by Ronald Reagan. Just FYI, even though facts don't have any impact on hysterical, fearful types, EIGHT NATIONS with strict gun control laws --Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, ...more
By June Bug (1479), SOUTHAMPTON on Dec 15, 15 10:59 AM
WRONG ! The second amendment allows us to own firearms for hunting and home protection , thank GOD!! You should pray that you never have to defend yourself or home against an armed criminal.
By bigfresh (3030), north sea on Dec 15, 15 12:20 PM
June Bug. Using your cherry picked countries as examples perpetuates a myth. In America, we can demonstrate that private ownership of guns reduces crime, but from country to country there is no correlation between gun availability and the violent crime rate. We can contrast the per capita homicide rate with the per capita gun ownership rate between different industrialized countries . Contrasting the data shows zero correlation between the availability of guns and the overall homicide rate.

Also, ...more
By dnice (1998), Hampton Bays on Dec 15, 15 1:30 PM
Wrong Phil, as usual.
By dnice (1998), Hampton Bays on Dec 15, 15 1:31 PM
The headline to this article says he introduced a bill to prevent suspected terrorists from buying guns. But Newsday had an article on this saying his bill was at odds with Peter King's. It said Zeldin's bill would ALLOW individuals on U.S. terrorist lists to buy guns unless the Justice Dept stops them with a court order. Zeldin must either owe the gun lobby a lot or is currying their favor big time. Either that or he is NUTS!!!!!
By baywoman (153), southampton on Dec 15, 15 10:18 AM
1 member liked this comment
Thank you for pointing out how misleading this headline is. Zeldin is obviously both nuts and in the pocket of the gun lobby. We are now living in a nation so corrupt, so dumbed down that citizens think they're safer without gun control, and that a psychologically disturbed, dangerous megalomaniac is going to protect them. God help us.
By June Bug (1479), SOUTHAMPTON on Dec 15, 15 11:13 AM
No need to get your knickers in a knot June- There are gun laws on the books, laws that if enforced would reduce the number of ILLEGALLY OWNED guns. Check out your boy Barry's home town of Chicago, guns are virtually banned but the thugs are carrying, and using firearms at an alarming rate, one of the highest murder rates in the country. A well armed populace is a deterrent to crime and tyranny!
By bigfresh (3030), north sea on Dec 15, 15 3:47 PM
1 member liked this comment
So we should all get a gun and take it into inner-city Chicago, and that will deter crime there? Excuse me while I finish LMAO.
You're in the thrall of the logic of the NRA which is perverse and transparently self-serving. Consult the studies reported in the New England Journal of Medicine which prove that owning and using a firearm hugely increases the risk of being shot. You're operating out of the tired old rationalizing that is contradicted by the evidence. Gun ownership makes everyone ...more
By June Bug (1479), SOUTHAMPTON on Dec 15, 15 10:24 PM
What evidence June Bug? You couldn't be more wrong, or perhaps misled is a better word as I doubt you have ever owned or fired a firearm or truly studied the subject. It is easy to fall for the propaganda.
By dnice (1998), Hampton Bays on Dec 16, 15 10:02 AM
"The health risks of owning a gun are so established and scientifically non-controvertible that the American Academy of Pediatrics has issued a policy statement recommending that pediatricians urge parents to remove all guns from their homes". Note: Not just lock them up, remove them.
It is pretty much impossible to penetrate the irrational fears over the practically zero need one would have to defend against terrorists or home intruders, but here are the actual facts surrounding the ...more
By June Bug (1479), SOUTHAMPTON on Dec 16, 15 10:56 AM
1 member liked this comment
GUN VIOLENCE STATISTICS

Statistics on the Dangers of Gun Use for Self-Defense
Posted on Monday, May 11th, 2015
Guns kept in the home are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal unintentional shooting, criminal assault or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.1 That is, a gun is more likely to be used to kill or injure an innocent person in the home than a threatening intruder.
Though guns may be successfully used in self-defense even when ...more
By June Bug (1479), SOUTHAMPTON on Dec 16, 15 11:04 AM
1 member liked this comment
Bug- my point is that in the liberal utopia that is Chicago, there are incredibly strong gun control laws, they do nothing to stop criminals from possessing and using guns. We have the RIGHT to own guns, conversely we have the RIGHT not to. I exercise my rights and so do you, isn't America great?
By bigfresh (3030), north sea on Dec 16, 15 12:34 PM
Junk Science, Junkier “Journalism”
Posted on July 28, 2014 by Mitch Berg
In recent years, this blog has made great sport of criticizing the MinnPost‘s coverage of Second Amendment issues, noting that much of their coverage has been both anti-gun and comically poor, and pointing out they are sponsored by the Joyce Foundation, which actively sponsors many anti-gun groups (including Protect MN here in Minnesota, and the national-scoped “Violence Policy Center”, ...more
By dnice (1998), Hampton Bays on Dec 16, 15 2:28 PM
How is this incoherent word salad a rebuttal when all it does is throw grenades at Susan Perry. Sorry, you'll have to do better than this nonsense.
By June Bug (1479), SOUTHAMPTON on Dec 16, 15 10:07 PM
Sorry you couldn't understand it.
By dnice (1998), Hampton Bays on Dec 17, 15 10:09 AM
Sorry you couldn't understand it.
By dnice (1998), Hampton Bays on Dec 17, 15 10:09 AM
Keep up the Good Work Lee!!!!
By Gillnetter (78), Hampton Bays on Dec 16, 15 11:38 AM
Liberals would love to disarm the populace for their own nefarious reasons. A well armed citizenry is crucial to democracy.
By bigfresh (3030), north sea on Dec 16, 15 1:08 PM
2 members liked this comment
The United States is not a democracy. It is a polyarchy.
Dec 16, 15 9:10 PM appended by Mr. Z
"A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men ... [W]e have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world—no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men." ~ Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom: A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People
By Mr. Z (9530), North Sea on Dec 16, 15 9:10 PM
Woodrow Wilson must not have traveled much in the 1920's. That was an idiotic comment
By razza5350 (1860), East Hampton on Dec 17, 15 6:15 AM
Nefarious reasons? Ridiculous. It's the fearful right wing that will fight to the death to hold onto the status quo. Liberals are about progress and justice through peaceful means. No liberal would shoot up an abortion clinic or bomb a government building or start a religious war (or any war for that matter) or round up people or control populations through nefarious methods like ovens, e.g.
And that democracy statement? Democracy is based on the rule of law, not anarchy which is what ...more
By June Bug (1479), SOUTHAMPTON on Dec 17, 15 11:13 AM
The above is in reply to bigfresh.
By June Bug (1479), SOUTHAMPTON on Dec 17, 15 11:14 AM
June Bug, you have officially jumped the shark with that post. So nuts I don't even know where to start. "Progress and justice through peaceful means"? The kool aid is strong with this one.
Dec 17, 15 7:08 PM appended by dnice
Why is it that progressive liberals who steal guns then kill innocent movie goers and helpless children in schools have NEVER been conservative NRA members??? Consider that the: Ft Hood Shooter - Registered Democrat- Muslim Columbine Shooters - Too young to vote- both families were registered democrats and progressive liberals Virginia Tech Shooter - Wrote hate mail to Pres Bush and to his staff. Registered Democrat Colorado Theater Shooter - Registered Democrat, staff worker on the Obama campaign, occupy wall street participant, progressive liberal Connecticut School Shooter - Registered Democrat, hated Christians,
By dnice (1998), Hampton Bays on Dec 17, 15 7:08 PM
Law abiding citizens LEGALLY carrying is not anarchy by any stretch, your painting liberals as peaceful angels is delusional, does OCCUPY WALL STREET ring a bell? How about the wonderful liberals in Ferguson burning down their own city? FYI for "hundreds of years" damn near every home had a gun or two , I remember going to high school with a shotgun for pheasant or duck hunting
By bigfresh (3030), north sea on Dec 18, 15 7:11 AM
when school let out. There were many students who had weapons in their vehicles for this very reason. No one ever thought about shooting up the school. This was at Mercy High School 1976-1979.
By bigfresh (3030), north sea on Dec 18, 15 7:14 AM
In your case, I do know where to start. You don't cite your source(s) for any of your claims ("Muslim Columbine Shooters"?), and don't have the time at the moment to fact-check them, but whatever the particular views of these perpetrators were is meaningless because you're talking about mental illness. And obviously, you don't understand that there is a difference between ideology and politicial party. I was talking ideology. You can be a liberal Republican (as in the case of Richard Nixon) ...more
By June Bug (1479), SOUTHAMPTON on Dec 18, 15 10:50 AM
In the history of protest, OCCUPY was notable specifically because of its peaceful nature. It took THE MAN to disrupt it so as to be rid of it.
As for guns, yes in rural areas hunting was de rigeur with "a gun or two in every home", but what we have now is a whole other (dangerous) scenario. Arsenals in homes, a "gun or two" for every person, some proudly carried around in shopping malls, some meant strictly for use in armed combat. Defense is one thing, but having them to take the law ...more
By June Bug (1479), SOUTHAMPTON on Dec 18, 15 11:03 AM
The above is a reply to bigfresh.
By June Bug (1479), SOUTHAMPTON on Dec 18, 15 11:06 AM
The above is a reply to dnice.
By June Bug (1479), SOUTHAMPTON on Dec 18, 15 11:06 AM
The above is a reply to dnice.
By June Bug (1479), SOUTHAMPTON on Dec 18, 15 11:08 AM
I'm not sure Occupy was all that peaceful. I recall rapes and robbery and tons of drugs being referenced. I wasn't there, I don't know. But I know for sure there were reports of rape.
By squeaky (286), hampton bays on Dec 18, 15 11:21 AM
to bigfresh:

As the only member of this forum who is a self-identified "Liberal" (capitalized), let me assure you that we fully support the right to own firearms guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, as we do ALL constitutional guarantees.

We leave it to cafeteria constitutionalists, both Left and Right, to choose among the rights that they would honor or ignore. WE support the fullest expression of individual freedoms that our coruscatingly brilliant Liberal founding fathers enshrined.

If ...more
By highhatsize (3321), East Quogue on Dec 18, 15 11:42 AM
2 members liked this comment
Do cafeteria constitutionalists include the Obama administration?

By razza5350 (1860), East Hampton on Dec 18, 15 4:10 PM
Try viewing "The Lottery of Birth". Maybe some of you will open your eyes...
By Mr. Z (9530), North Sea on Dec 19, 15 10:53 PM
Guns, Mental Illness and Newtown

By DAVID KOPEL - WSJ

Has the rate of random mass shootings in the United States increased? Over the past 30 years, the answer is definitely yes. It is also true that the total U.S. homicide rate has fallen by over half since 1980, and the gun homicide rate has fallen along with it. Today, Americans are safer from violent crime, including gun homicide, than they have been at any time since the mid-1960s.

Mass shootings, defined as four or ...more
By dnice (1998), Hampton Bays on Dec 17, 15 8:33 PM
The writer ascribes the mass shootings you cited in your previous post to mental illness, not to political ideology or party. So you're contradicting yourself by posting this.
Remember this is from the Wall Street Journal which is all about commerce (read: gun sales), so this writer is a tool for the industry and his anti-gun control arguments don't hold water. Notice nowhere does he refer to or advocate for any tightening of availability at gun shows. Only cites regulations for stores, ...more
By June Bug (1479), SOUTHAMPTON on Dec 18, 15 11:33 AM
June Bug, first the WSJ isn't just about commerce. I don't now where you got that from. 2nd, there is no gun show loophole. I have purchased firearms from stores and from gun shows and the process was the same. You still need to call the FBI for a background check. Have you ever purchased a firearm or even fired one or are you just regurgitating the lame liberal myth about the "loophole" based on zero experience? Seriously, you must have some firearms experience to be so insistent of its inherent ...more
By dnice (1998), Hampton Bays on Dec 18, 15 12:32 PM
My attempts to correctly place these two latest responses didn't work for some reason, so sorry if any confusion, but I think you'll manage to discern where they belong and to whom they're directed. Thank you.
By June Bug (1479), SOUTHAMPTON on Dec 18, 15 11:12 AM
America's physicians have declared the proliferation of guns and gun violence a national health crisis, and are organizing with America's lawyers in a campaign to educate and encourage legislators to pass laws that will help alleviate the situation. The ramifications of gun violence do not just affect a victim. They go to the trauma of families, the costs to the taxpayers, the fear that ripples through the whole nation, the affects on medical personnel, and on and on. Do you know it is against ...more
By June Bug (1479), SOUTHAMPTON on Dec 24, 15 11:38 AM
Palmface
By dnice (1998), Hampton Bays on Dec 24, 15 9:23 PM
Harbor Hot Tubs, Holiday Special