Hampton Motors, Body Shop, Restoration, Full Service, Storage, Repair,
27east.com

Story - News

Mar 2, 2018 10:25 AMPublication: The Southampton Press

State Senate Democrats Fail To Force Vote On Gun Safety Legislation

Mar 6, 2018 12:15 PM

Democrats in the New York State Senate failed to force a vote on gun safety measures when State Senator Kenneth P. LaValle and his fellow Republicans voted as a bloc to reject the proposals.

Using the unorthodox tactic of a “hostile amendment,” Democrats tried on Wednesday, February 28, to circumvent the committees that have been withholding gun regulation bills from floor votes. They added amendments—including a bump stock ban and more thorough background check system—to a bill about hunters’ organ donor status that was on the floor.

At that point, Temporary President and Senate Majority Leader John Flanagan, a Republican from East Northport, declared that the amendments were not related to the bill at hand and blocked them. It would have taken 32 votes to overturn that ruling; the Democrats could only rustle up 29, with all of the Republicans present voting against the effort.

Mr. LaValle explained his actions, saying that he cast his “no” vote largely on procedural grounds and noted that Senate Republicans are currently crafting their own bundle of gun legislation.

“I voted against the amendment because it was not germane to the legislation that was being considered,” he said in an email through Greg Blower, his communications director. “In addition, we have been working diligently on developing a comprehensive package of bills to strengthen school security and keep students safe.

“As a former teacher, principal, parent and grandparent, I truly believe we must act swiftly and decisively to implement additional school safety measures,” he continued. “Teachers must be able to teach, and students must be able to learn in a safe environment.”

The Republican gun legislation package could be ready as soon as next week.

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

If you're not responsible enough to own a gun at 18... then you're not responsible enough to vote at 18... I think we should raise the age for both to 21



By joe hampton (3096), The Hamptons on Mar 2, 18 11:59 AM
Also driving, smoking, Rated R movies, and the age of consent!
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 2, 18 12:04 PM
All great nations collapse from within. Is America next? We have many serious problems that need to be addressed by intelligent, nonpartisan people. Now look who we have fouling up the oval office. No hope there.
By country joe (22), sag harbor on Mar 2, 18 12:08 PM
2 members liked this comment
The reason Trump was elected is because the people could see that our great nation was collapsing from within. Drain the swamp. MAGA!!!
By Taz (414), East Quogue on Mar 2, 18 12:21 PM
1 member liked this comment
Jared making deals in the White House. The SEC then drops an investigation of the private equity company which loaned him megabucks, Trump signing tax cuts for real estate developers. The first family is not draining the swamp, they’re licensing it, and branding it with great big gold letters. One wonders if there is enough manpower or time in our justice system to handle all this crime?

By June Bug (2029), SOUTHAMPTON on Mar 2, 18 12:57 PM
LaValle...another tone-deaf Republican... Sorry dude.. you're gone.

Taz.. drain the swamp.... you read the paper lately? Kushner is The Swamp.
By harbor (335), East Hampton on Mar 2, 18 12:27 PM
1 member liked this comment
There's no denying that our country was in big trouble long before Trump. Place blame where it belongs. Talk about being tone-deaf???
By Taz (414), East Quogue on Mar 2, 18 12:31 PM
Only Republicans vote against gun safety laws.
By Arnold Timer (286), Sag Harbor on Mar 2, 18 8:31 PM
1 member liked this comment
That's simply not accurate.
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 5, 18 9:20 AM
Hate all this PARTY back biting BS. No thinking what is good for the country.
As far as our president, take your heads out of the sand people, We voted him in, support the USA... I supported the last guy, though I didn't vote for him...
Proud to be a AMERICAN...
By knitter (1207), Southampton on Mar 2, 18 12:36 PM
As an American, Trump doesn't represent me or the ideologies that founded this country. He is as Un-American as you can get without being named Vladimir. Anyone who fails to see this is purely playing party politics. Sorry (not sorry).
By johnj (798), Westhampton on Mar 2, 18 12:50 PM
2 members liked this comment
Actually, he does. You're too scared to renounce your citizenship. Thus, he is your representative, as an American, in any you want to measure it.
By even flow (630), East Hampton on Mar 2, 18 1:05 PM
Why would I do that? He'll be gone in 1054 days and then the true Americans, myself included, can get back to the job of MAGA.
By johnj (798), Westhampton on Mar 2, 18 2:39 PM
True American johnj? No. Blowhard? Probably.
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 2, 18 2:43 PM
Survey: Americans Blame Florida School Shooting Decisively on Government, Not GunsThe latest Rasmussen Reports survey shows that Americans blame government rather than guns for the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.
According to Rasmussen, 54% of Americans believe government failure is to “blame for the mass shooting.” Only 33% of Americans blame guns. Eleven percent of Americans say they are unsure what contributed to the occurrence of the mass shooting.
Mar 2, 18 12:42 PM appended by They call me
The MSM are just as much to blame for these copycat shootings. They do a real good job of making the shooters famous, and highlight their problems for the whole world to see. They give them just enough sympathy for the next wacko to start thinking about it as an option.Take for instance any shooting in this nation and the media will throw more fuel on it to push their narrative, especially if they can politicalize it to make President Trump look bad, or take away our Second Amendment right.
By They call me (2333), southampton on Mar 2, 18 12:42 PM
Why is Fred Thiele standing with the Republicans?

Or is that just a file photo?




By Frank Wheeler (1785), Northampton on Mar 2, 18 2:11 PM
Good file photo edit,,, could have been faster, of course.




By Frank Wheeler (1785), Northampton on Mar 4, 18 11:04 AM
That's also a part of the problem so I think that there should also be some common sense first amendment restrictions. Its relentless pounding in the media and social media platforms as well as instructions on how to do these nasty things.. The first ten minutes or so of any newscast is death and destruction. Who says news has to be bad news all the time? Whatever happened to the good news? Maybe media can self regulate like some stores are doing now by raising purchasing ages and not carrying certain ...more
By North Sea Citizen (478), North Sea on Mar 2, 18 2:16 PM
There used to be a thing called "the fairness doctrine" which required networks to dedicate at least some airtime to impartial content.

Perhaps its reinstatement would be a good start!
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 2, 18 2:29 PM
the fairness doctrine ? Your out of your tree. any other attacks on the 1st you would like to mandate ?
By Erin 27 E (1025), hampton bays on Mar 2, 18 5:10 PM
I was talking to a poster lamenting the lack of impartiality on TV. I understand if you're not bothered by it, but others are.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 2, 18 5:15 PM
Oh, do tell us, Hon, how the Fairness Doctrine was ever a violation of the First Amendment? Were you even alive when it was in force?
By June Bug (2029), SOUTHAMPTON on Mar 2, 18 6:49 PM
Evenflow, you are a very bitter, try to help OUR COUNTRY.After the elections did you renouce you citizenship as you suggested?
There is always Canada, Mexico if they will take us.
Johnj, make America great again...



By knitter (1207), Southampton on Mar 2, 18 2:35 PM
1 member liked this comment
State senate finally came to their senses? Too late after allowing bogus Safe Act to be pushed through under the cover of darkness. Zero faith in any pol on either side.
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 2, 18 2:38 PM
If you read the article (who has the time, right?) it says that the State Senate Republicans are working on their own gun control legislation.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 2, 18 2:56 PM
What makes you think I didn't read the article Fore?
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 2, 18 3:17 PM
That you thought the State Senate was rejecting gun control in general, when in fact they're simply rejecting THIS gun control bill.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 2, 18 3:20 PM
So what, you think the R bill will be more restrictive? Do me a favor and try, even if it is baby steps, to stop acting like you know what every post means. Every time I give you the benefit of the doubt you prove me wrong.
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 2, 18 3:43 PM
It'll be more restrictive than the status quo by definition: it's a gun control bill.
Mar 2, 18 3:45 PM appended by Fore1gnBornHBgrown
So are you opposed to all forms of gun control, or just those proposed by Democrats?
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 2, 18 3:45 PM
Don't think so. Hard to more restrictive then we currently have. Have you read the Safe Act?

My hope is better school safety, better law enforcement protocols with active shooters, more follow up on tips, etc. Existing regulations will work if enforced.
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 2, 18 3:51 PM
I'd buy that if it was "school safety legislation" but the aforementioned article is pretty clear: "Senate Republicans are currently crafting their own bundle of gun legislation."
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 2, 18 3:58 PM
You haven't answered my question. Have you read the Safe Act? If so, how could they possibly get more restrictive?
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 2, 18 4:02 PM
Fore, I can't answer your question until I have seen the proposed legislation but generally I oppose any new gun control legislation for the many reasons I have detailed in previous posts.
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 2, 18 4:20 PM
This sounds like deflection from the fact you didn't realize state Republicans were also proposing gun control legislation, but sure: further hardware bans or raised minimum ages would both be examples of legislation more restrictive than the status quo.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 2, 18 4:21 PM
You still didn't answer my question, big surprise.

How is it fact that I didn't realize...?. You can prove such fact? You can back off these childish debate tactics any time you like Fore but no where did I state that they weren't, wink wink, coming up with there own proposal.
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 2, 18 4:30 PM
I haven't read the statute, but I don't need to read it to know that further hardware bans (for example, a state "assault weapon ban" like the federal ban from '94) or increased age minimums would both be more restrictive than the current law because I know that semi-automatic rifles are currently sold legally in NYS, and because raising the age for purchases is de-facto more restrictive.

As to your second point, you may have the benefit of the doubt that you did read the article, even ...more
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 2, 18 4:43 PM
You are wrong Fore and claiming that you didn't read it and then debating about it is foolish( reminds me of Pelosi claiming "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."). AR-15's, among others(NY legal modifications notwithstanding), were already banned in NY(more restrictive than 1994 ban). You cannot have an educated debate when you haven't educated yourself on the subject. How can you debate the merits of something you have not read or fully understand?

Maybe ...more
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 2, 18 5:05 PM
I did not know that, but semiautomatic rifles not covered by the SAFE act are still sold, as are bump stocks, right?

I'm not even giving an opinion on the individual proposals. My only point is that "how could they possibly get more restrictive [than the SAFE act]?" is a dumb statement.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 2, 18 5:13 PM
What you don't know about current gun legislation could fill a warehouse. Thanks for disregarding your own admitted lack of knowledge. I did predict the predictable with your response.

By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 2, 18 5:28 PM
After doing some reading, bump stocks are indeed available for purchase in New York State. Thanks for prompting me to learn by making me answer my own question!

In addition, while "assault weapons" are not sold, a semiautomatic rifle can indeed be purchased as long as it doesn't fit some seemingly arbitrary list of features. The M&P 15-22 appears to be a favorite of upstate New Yorkers, do you know if it's affected by any local ordinances here?
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 2, 18 5:53 PM
What is an assault weapon?

What is the magazine restriction on the firearms you mentioned?
Mar 2, 18 6:00 PM appended by dnice
They are State regulations Fore, of course they apply here. Some areas, NYC, have more restrictive laws but local ordinances do not normally trump state law in regards to firearms, especially when less restrictive.
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 2, 18 6:00 PM
Do you really want me to recite a definition I just read off the internet half an hour ago?

It's an arbitrary definition that some legislators decided on.

10 rounds, right? A more restrictive law would be 9! See, it's POSSIBLE!
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 2, 18 6:04 PM
Currently 7 in NY.
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 2, 18 6:06 PM
Lol, of course state law applies, I was asking if we had local ordinances that were more restrictive.

Also, you can have a ten round magazine, it just can't be loaded with more than seven bullets unless you're at the range.

See! They could take out the range exception! That'd be more restrictive!
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 2, 18 6:11 PM
Nice try Fore. Way to adjust to the rebuttal. I know the law(in this regard). I'm just pointing out that you don't and all the conjecture after that has been pointed out to you only proves one thing, either you can't admit when you are wrong or that you make a habit of giving impulsive opinions based on no information and then spin based on proof.
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 2, 18 6:19 PM
So you insist that law couldn't "possibly get more restrictive" than the SAFE Act?
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 2, 18 6:41 PM
Are you asking if the law could get more restrictive than an act that you know nothing about?
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 2, 18 7:54 PM
Correction: knew nothing about this afternoon.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 2, 18 7:56 PM
Oh so now you are informed?
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 2, 18 8:05 PM
You keep practicing your debate tactics Fore. I’m just gonna move on confident in my position and knowing yours won’t change regardless of how impartial you pretend to be.
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 2, 18 8:15 PM
Ban AR-15 and their clones?
By Arnold Timer (286), Sag Harbor on Mar 2, 18 8:34 PM
Ban AR-15 and their clones?
By Arnold Timer (286), Sag Harbor on Mar 2, 18 8:34 PM
No Arnold, no reason why law abiding citizens cannot own them.
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 2, 18 8:39 PM
I don't think I've ever pretended to be impartial; obviously I have my own biases that manifest consciously and subconsciously, I didn't know impartiality was a requirement to participate in the comments. What I haven't done is give an opinion on the individual proposals discussed, because I don't think I've been asked for it.

As to your question, I am now informed enough to support my educated guess that laws can indeed "possibly get more restrictive" than the SAFE Act.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 3, 18 8:20 AM
Fore, you changed the argument(a pattern in your posts) to one you could think you win because you were caught unaware about and uninformed on the original subject matter. You started this exchange by implying that I should have read the article, which I already had, then brushed off the fact that you hadn't read the Safe Act because, hey, I don't need to read it to be able to discuss it. How could you argue legislation may or may not be more restrictive when you had no idea how restrictive the ...more
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 3, 18 12:52 PM
1 member liked this comment
Because I know that there are restrictions being discussed, such as the aforementioned bump stock ban or increased age minimums, therefore not currently law BECAUSE the state legislature is talking about enacting them!

As to whether you read the article and actually realized that State Republicans are working on their own gun control bill, I already took back my assertion and gave you the benefit of the doubt.
Mar 3, 18 12:58 PM appended by Fore1gnBornHBgrown
Do you understand now? We know for a fact that there exist tighter restrictions than the SAFE Act because THAT'S WHAT THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT!
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 3, 18 12:58 PM
1 member liked this comment
Fore, anyone who reads this exchange can make up their own mind but you are full of it . You don't know what you don't know (well, until you take 15 min to research it and then you were an expert).

By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 3, 18 2:12 PM
I never said I was an expert, just learned enough to
Mar 3, 18 2:22 PM appended by Fore1gnBornHBgrown
enough to know whether tighter regulations exist or not.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 3, 18 2:22 PM
No reason why citizens not in the military should own them, and do only by dint of a powerful lobby and a majority of one on the SC. The 2nd Amendment is not settled law, and is subject, as is any other constitutional provision, to change brought about by political pressure.


So You Think You Know the Second Amendment?

By Jeffrey Toobin
The New Yorker
December 17, 2012


Does the Second Amendment prevent Congress from passing gun-control laws? The ...more
By June Bug (2029), SOUTHAMPTON on Mar 4, 18 6:53 PM
The Republican party already has a gun control program, it's whatever the NRA tells them to do, which is absolutely nothing.
By country joe (22), sag harbor on Mar 2, 18 3:10 PM
2 members liked this comment
Nonsense. You think the R party in NY listened to the NRA when it came time to vote for the Safe Act. You are guilty of posting without paying attention or worse, having little knowledge on the subject. Look on the bright side, Juney B liked you.
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 2, 18 3:20 PM
Uh, country joe referenced the Republican Party, not the Republican legislators in NYS who voted for the Safe Act. How about YOU "pay attention", Hon?
And, btw, he is completely correct in his assertion. Yet more evidence you need to be "paying attention".
By June Bug (2029), SOUTHAMPTON on Mar 2, 18 6:17 PM
What is the article about Juney? NYS legislators. I know how hard it is for you to stay on topic.
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 2, 18 6:21 PM
@dnice: For a gunslinger, you sure don't shoot straight or fight fair. CJ was not referencing the article; the reference was general. And even if he/she was, of the 61 NYS Senate votes, only 9 Republicans voted in favor of the Safe Act. Think the NRA might have had a little influence there, Hon? In the immortal words of no doubt another of your idols, Caribou Barbie, "You betcha!"
Mar 2, 18 7:07 PM appended by June Bug
Remember When Justice Alito mouthed “not true” when President Obama said in his SOTU that Citizens United would open the door to foreign money in our elections? Now it is clear there was a huge sum the NRA put in via dark money— and we will soon learn how much of it was Russian. Who do you think was taking all this money, Hon?
By June Bug (2029), SOUTHAMPTON on Mar 2, 18 7:07 PM
The NRA had no influence as that was passed in the middle the night before anybody knew was going on.
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 2, 18 8:05 PM
Shameless dimwittery.
The NRA had no influence on these legislators
between its founding in 1871, and "that night"?
None of them received a dime from the NRA between 1871 and 1913? Geez, who'd a thought?
By June Bug (2029), SOUTHAMPTON on Mar 2, 18 8:51 PM
Yeah considering none of them were alive in 1913, i suppose none of them received a dime. Talk about dimwittery.
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 2, 18 9:06 PM
I meant 2013 obviously.
By June Bug (2029), SOUTHAMPTON on Mar 2, 18 9:15 PM
I know JB, too easy not to take advantage;)
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 2, 18 9:21 PM
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
By Ditch Bum (466), Water Mill on Mar 2, 18 5:17 PM
2 members liked this comment
Use the entire 2nd Amendment, it's short enough:
Amendment 2:
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.
By dfree (462), hampton bays on Mar 3, 18 8:40 AM
Tribes Are Gathering
By pw herman (932), southampton on Mar 2, 18 5:31 PM
Politicans don't read the bills, staff read it and are given the hi points
By knitter (1207), Southampton on Mar 2, 18 6:45 PM
MEDIA POUND AWAY
TRUMP APPROVAL HOLDS AT 49%

DRUDGE REPORT
By 27dan (2330), Shinnecock Hills on Mar 2, 18 11:43 PM
1 member liked this comment
Never let a tragedy go to waste.- Rules for Radicals
By Duckbornandraised (169), Eastport on Mar 3, 18 2:06 AM
2 members liked this comment
GOP Rep. Gaetz: ‘If Jeff Sessions Does Not Appoint a Second Special Counsel, Then We Need a New Attorney General’Friday on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity,” Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) told fill-in host Jeanine Pirro that if Attorney General Jeff Sessions declines to appoint a second special counsel to investigate wrongdoing within his Department of Justice, then he should be removed from that post.
By They call me (2333), southampton on Mar 3, 18 2:19 PM
Go for it. Nothing happened to Governor Cuomo when he disbanded the Mooreland Commission when it got close to exposing his buddies. Why is President Trump afraid of Jeff Sessions? Once fired Mr. Sessions won't even be a US Senator and couldn't vote for Impeachment even if it got through the House of Representatives.
By dfree (462), hampton bays on Mar 3, 18 4:35 PM
free, you just dont get do you
By Undocumented Democrat (1666), southampton on Mar 3, 18 4:48 PM
Don't get what? Fire AG Sessions, no one likes the little weasel. Last time I looked, the US Attorney General was appointed and can be dismissed by the President. Do it.

And if the Coast Guard can build a huge steel tower and a new building in Hampton Bays without getting special permission, why does President Trump need any special permission to build a wall on the Mexican Border? Last time I looked both ends of our Mexican border were coasts, and the Rio Grande is Coast Guard responsibility ...more
By dfree (462), hampton bays on Mar 4, 18 12:49 AM
Hey dnice: you wanted to know how our gun laws could get "any more restrictive"? Compare and contrast regulations for Mexicans, Japanese, and South Africans to you American cry babies:

How to Buy a Gun in 15 Countries
By AUDREY CARLSEN and SAHIL CHINOY MARCH 2, 2018

Many Americans can buy a gun in less than an hour. In some countries, the process takes months. Roughly a third of American gun owners buy guns without a background check, which federal law does not require when ...more
By June Bug (2029), SOUTHAMPTON on Mar 3, 18 7:40 PM
1 member liked this comment
> "Roughly a third of American gun owners buy guns without a background check..."

I could just ask you for a cite, but I'll save you the trouble because there is none no matter how many anti-gun websites you search.

The shooting last month in South Florida was tragic, but preventable -- look how many existing laws, procedures and systems were ignored for the criminal event to happen.

And yet everyone wants to talk about the gun!




By Frank Wheeler (1785), Northampton on Mar 3, 18 10:07 PM
2 members liked this comment
@Frank Wheeler: No trouble at all. The post is based on excerpts from an article in Friday's Times.
Without using the two clicks it would have taken to find it on your own, you come up with some kind of indiscernible statement about anti-gun websites and non-existent citations? WTH?
By June Bug (2029), SOUTHAMPTON on Mar 4, 18 11:18 AM
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 4, 18 7:59 PM
JuneZ, citing the NY Times does not bolster your position, that rag is the Newspaper of Record for the extreme left wing.
By bigfresh (3454), north sea on Mar 4, 18 8:11 PM
3 members liked this comment
@June Bug (nice convention -- don't understand it, but I shall henceforth adopt it -- thank you.)

Let me explain something to you. When YOU offer data, it is YOUR obligation to provide the citation, NOT mine. That's how it works, whether you're on the Internet, or submitting an academic thesis or professional study.

Trying to keep this civil, but my statement seems to have been "indiscernible" (you probably meant "opaque") only to you.

But thank you for identifying the ...more
By Frank Wheeler (1785), Northampton on Mar 5, 18 9:35 AM
1 member liked this comment
It's kind of ironic that Frank asked for a cite when June literally posted the entire article.

If one goes to that article, that particular statistic links to a Harvard survey conducted to dig deeper into an initial survey of roughly 2,000 gun-owners which concluded that 40% of them had not undergone a background check for their purchase.

Of course, since it's a survey, there are limits to the usefulness of its data, but in the absence of actual records (which the government doesn't ...more
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 5, 18 9:46 AM
It also links to a National Review article titled, "The ‘40 Percent’ Myth" By John R. Lott Jr. January 24, 2013 8:30 PM

By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 5, 18 10:04 AM
That article is not only NOT linked from the NYT article, but also refutes a study from 1997 and pre-dates both the article June posted and the later study which settled on the 1/3 number.

In other words, it doesn't say what you think it says.
Mar 5, 18 10:14 AM appended by Fore1gnBornHBgrown
The NR article also appears to suggest that inherited or gifted weapons shouldn't go through a background check at all by omitting those sales from their numbers...well, OK then.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 5, 18 10:14 AM
If a source link is linked to a link. Of course it's linked.

What it says is the 40% figure is pure BS.
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 5, 18 10:42 AM
The 40% figure is indeed BS because it's over 20 years old.

The finalized results from the Harvard study found that "22% of current U.S. gun owners who acquired a firearm within the past 2 years (2015-2016) did so without a background check" and "For firearms purchased privately within the previous 2 years, 50% were obtained without a background check."

"Firearm Acquisition Without Background Checks: Results of a National Survey", February 2017
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 5, 18 11:03 AM
Democrats certainly parade the 40% statistic around enough. I said it was BS not because of it's age, but because of how it is calculated.

The 22% is high as well for the same reason. That figure too is paraded inaccurately and would mean - 22% of firearms purchased were done so from someone who didn't possess a Federal Firearms License, and that's simply not the case. It's more likely those responding to the survey didn't realize they were in fact queried in NICS during the transfer process. ...more
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 5, 18 11:46 AM
Which is why we have to rely on imperfect surveys: the fact that we have no records of how many firearms are transferred without background checks is a feature of the law, not a bug.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 5, 18 11:52 AM
I'm not convinced we need to know how many firearms are transferred without a background check.

There hasn't been one large scale incident where this was a problem. The vast majority of gun transfers do however, undergo a background check through an FFL.

By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 5, 18 12:48 PM
1 member liked this comment
Whether or not it's preferable to have 100% of firearms transfers subject to background checks, it's legal blindspot that's easily exploited by anyone with a basic understanding of the law.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 5, 18 1:00 PM
Got it, and acknowledging the lack of any examples.

Close the legal blind spot...for criminals. Criminals don't need blind spots.

Sounds a lot like gun registration for the law abiding to me.

By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 5, 18 2:02 PM
And it sounds like you're promoting access to firearms for people who are in the NICS, to me.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 5, 18 2:04 PM
No, it's still illegal for certain people to have firearms.
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 5, 18 2:13 PM
But it's still legal to sell them firearms.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 5, 18 2:22 PM
LOL...no, it's not legal. You're lack of knowledge on the subject is apparent. To add, about half the states already have private sale laws of one form or another on the books.
Mar 5, 18 3:31 PM appended by Po Boy
....Your...
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 5, 18 3:31 PM
It's illegal to knowingly sell someone on the NICS a firearm.

So do tell: how is a seller supposed to know whether someone is on the NICS?

They don't know, so they are not knowingly selling a person on the NICS a firearm.
Mar 5, 18 3:35 PM appended by Fore1gnBornHBgrown
So do half the states have the right idea?
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 5, 18 3:35 PM
@Frank Wheeler - I wish I could have liked it twice.
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 5, 18 3:47 PM
Fore, you mean if a felon failed to make his/her way into NICS, it's perfectly fine to sell them a firearm? ("on the NICS" LOL, like its similar to the no fly list).

Frankly, I'd require them to complete the NICS query. Most do. Others would solicit input from the local police. The funny thing about guns owners, they want to abide by the law. They don't want the responsibility of selling to someone they shouldn't, they ask them or have them sign a form similar to questions on the ATF Form ...more
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 5, 18 7:55 PM
Whether someone is in/on the NICS is irrelevant if sellers aren't required to find out.

Liability across jurisdictions for unscrupulous sellers is the goal of universal background checks, every illegally-possessed gun started with a legal sale after all.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 5, 18 8:03 PM
@Frank Wheeler: Am I right in assuming that "@name" is what you are referring to by "convention"? I use it b/c often a Reply shows up where it doesn't belong.
Thank you for the ominous, condescending tone in your reply. The name of the article and the author is identical to the citations regularly supplied by posters on this thread, and which I have never heard either criticized as incomplete or remember ever seeing requests for additional information. I had no problem at all ...more
By June Bug (2029), SOUTHAMPTON on Mar 5, 18 8:15 PM
You're barking up a tree that has yet to be shown to be a problem Fore and in doing so, stepping onto a slippery slope to gun registration...all for 2-3% of sales according to the DOJ.

Unscrupulous sellers? It's always someone/something else other than the criminal with you people. What you're suggesting has NOTHING to do with sales of firearms...more likely how the gun nefariously came into possession by the CRIMINAL, i.e.stolen.
Mar 5, 18 8:48 PM appended by Po Boy
And how do you enforce it...and down the slippery slope it goes.
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 5, 18 8:48 PM
2-3%? Would love to see where that number comes from. Any leads better than "DOJ"?

In any event, it's hard to take seriously anyone that believes someone should be allowed to obtain a firearm without going through a background check.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 5, 18 9:13 PM
Yup 2-3%, you're suggesting nothing more than a solution in search of a problem. I'm still waiting for any evidence of the problem.

Interesting how MADD went for education as their primary means to address man made tragedy. They didn't ban cars.
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 5, 18 9:49 PM
So...no citation?

"A Georgia man was caught trafficking 11 handguns he bought at a gun show into New York City, law enforcement sources said Monday." NY Daily News, Feb 26, 2018
Mar 5, 18 9:56 PM appended by Fore1gnBornHBgrown
It’s a story we’ve investigated before at CBS46, a route so common, police call it the “Iron Pipeline.” The accused man bought all of his handguns over the weekend without getting a background check.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 5, 18 9:56 PM
It just dawned on me. The fact that the gun community who buy or trade privately and who police itself by ensuring the purchaser is not a prohibited person by checking a carry permit or going to a local gun shop and having a 4473 filled out is actually BETTER based on pure lack of events, than the government.
Mar 5, 18 10:05 PM appended by Po Boy
And Fore, the topic bleed begins to prove a point you can support.
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 5, 18 10:05 PM
I'm not even suggesting it would save lives, I'm just trying to convince you people buying guns without background checks is a thing that can and does happen.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 5, 18 10:11 PM
You see, that's a straw man sale for starters. The man was on the ATF radar, because in all likelihood, he was buying the guns in large quantities, and passing a background check in the process. Sales at guns shows ARE required to conduct a background check.
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 5, 18 10:15 PM
There was NOTHING in that article that suggested he DIDN'T pass a background check.

Mar 5, 18 10:16 PM appended by Po Boy
Only an incrimination of state gun laws.
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 5, 18 10:16 PM
"The accused man bought all of his handguns over the weekend without getting a background check." CBS46 (Atlanta), February 28, 2018.
Mar 5, 18 10:21 PM appended by Fore1gnBornHBgrown
Specifically of state laws that allow firearm transfers without a background check.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 5, 18 10:21 PM
Good gore stick to whatever it is you do. This ain't it.

"In this week's arrest, the ATF says Anthony Clark of Forest Park bought his guns from the Atlanta Expo Center and he didn't need a background check for any of them.

"The idea is, you don't need to do one again, because one was already done," said John Monroe of Georgia Carry.

Monroe explained how all a gun store owner needs to see to make a sale is a weapons carry license. It takes the place of doing a background ...more
Mar 5, 18 10:26 PM appended by Po Boy
gore=gravy. You see, this is why you can't speak reasonably with the unreasonable. This very thing would have been INCLUDED in the survey results we discussed earlier. HE had a permit and was considered to have PASSED a background check.
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 5, 18 10:26 PM
"Carry licenses need to be renewed every five years, but there's no way for a gun store owner to know if anything happened during that intervening time that would disqualify them from buying a gun."

If only there was some kind of way to check more recent records nearly instantaneously with little to no effort.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 5, 18 10:30 PM
I'm speechless.

And you wonder why the anti-people control crowd says...Molon labe.
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 5, 18 10:34 PM
"The ATF says the only drawback to that policy is when a person commits a disqualifying crime in between license renewals. Agents say there's no way for a gun store owner to know whether the license has been revoked early."

Too bad there's no better way.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 5, 18 10:37 PM
"The accused man bought all of his handguns over the weekend without getting a background check."
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 5, 18 10:54 PM
"...there's no way for a gun store owner to know whether the license has been revoked early."

I guaran f'n tee you, a federally licensed firearms dealer is doing a background check in a gun store - that's FEDERAL law. The license will likely serve as proof of address as an official government document.
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 5, 18 10:59 PM
Except we're not talking FFLs, we're talking private sales, which just resulted in 11 handguns landing in Staten Island last weekend, all bought without a background check, and you still haven't cited that 2-3% number.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 5, 18 11:03 PM
Sure we're talking FFL's, you used "gun store owner" in a quote from your very own source.
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 6, 18 8:05 AM
Except that source is exclusively and unequivocally about private sales because that's how the accused here obtained his 11 handguns.

Still no mention of that 2-3% source.
Mar 6, 18 8:27 AM appended by Fore1gnBornHBgrown
After further reading, I'm wrong: "Federal law does not require dealers to conduct a background check if a firearm purchaser presents a state permit to purchase or possess firearms that meets certain conditions. As a result, concealed weapons permit holders in Georgia are exempt from the federal background check requirement."
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 6, 18 8:27 AM
No where does it say it was a private sale. NO WHERE. What we do know is, this was a criminal. It's what criminals do....so the reasonable thing to do, of course, would be to pass laws that the law abiding follow. Hmmm.... sounds like his permit was allowed to remain valid (likely as part of an investigation), and he purchased the guns legally from an FFL who had a table at the show.
Mar 6, 18 9:25 AM appended by Po Boy
So the real question is, was this another case of government failure???? From your alluded source...."Note, however, that people who have become prohibited from possessing firearms may continue to hold state permits to purchase or permit firearms – and pass background checks – if the state fails to remove these permits in a timely fashion.)"
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 6, 18 9:25 AM
So a man bought 11 handguns from an FFL without a background check.

That seems like a worse problem than private sales.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 6, 18 9:34 AM
The problem is he got in his car and drive 700 miles with the intent of selling them, violating Federal Law...not that he bought 11 guns...legally.
Mar 6, 18 9:51 AM appended by Po Boy
He likely bought one gun at 11 FFL tables.
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 6, 18 9:51 AM
So in other words, under current law it's legal to buy 11 handguns from 11 different FFLs without any background checks in a single day.

That doesn't sound much better.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 6, 18 9:56 AM
So in other words, under law it's legal to buy 11 handguns from 11 different FFLs if the state legal requirements are met. Whether it was in one day, who knows...and whether the state government failed to pull his state permits...is another question.
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 6, 18 10:11 AM
This is actually a federal problem; federal law allows the permit to act as a "background check" but the state of Georgia apparently does no verification that the permit hasn't been revoked.

It's a problem that would be easily ameliorated by a required NICS check rather than relying on the paper permit.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 6, 18 10:18 AM
Federal law allows states to regulate as they deem appropriate.

STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION - Article 1, Section 1, Paragraph VIII.

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.”
Mar 6, 18 10:36 AM appended by Po Boy
...as long as the regulation is within legal boundaries.
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 6, 18 10:36 AM
So maybe the state of Georgia should do some verification when accepting a paper license as a background check.

Or maybe the federal government should stop accepting state carry licenses as background checks.

Whatever the preferred solution, most people would agree that one shouldn't be able to buy 11 handguns from 11 different FFLs without any background checks in a single day.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 6, 18 10:42 AM
You're making assumptions on what took place. Let's face it, we don't know if that's what took place.

But I'll lay along...What value does the background check bring to that scenario? Based on what we know, he would have passed all 11.
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 6, 18 11:02 AM
Here, I'll borrow one from you: since it wasn't ran, we don't know for a fact, do we?
Mar 6, 18 11:13 AM appended by Fore1gnBornHBgrown
I'd wager that since he was known to authorities, he was on the NICS.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 6, 18 11:13 AM
The answer is, no value. He was seemingly under investigation...but had no record (assumed since he was able to purchase the guns through an FFL)...legally. And if he had a record, it's a shining example once again of criminals will find a way to circumvent the law....so let's penalize the law abiding.



Mar 6, 18 12:06 PM appended by Po Boy
I's interesting how the discussion on people control has "progressed" from rifles to handguns. Interesting.
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 6, 18 12:06 PM
Can't hurt to run it though.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 6, 18 12:12 PM
You will find, FFLs do anyway regardless of state law. It covers their ass.
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 6, 18 12:30 PM
All of them? Invariably?

That runs counter to the story of how 11 handguns wound up a thousand miles up the road from their place of purchase.

Still waiting you to acknowledge that 2-3% is as if not more BS than 40%
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 6, 18 12:36 PM
It doesn't run counter at all. There is no law that limits the number of handguns a person may own. There IS a law that prohibits said handguns from being purchased if the intent is to resell them, let alone resell them illegally in another jurisdiction.
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 6, 18 12:53 PM
You forgot the part of the story where they were all bought without a background check.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 7, 18 10:02 AM
But they weren't. Under Georgia Law, he had cleared a background check.
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 7, 18 10:55 AM
The purchases were completed without the seller verifying that the buyer was not presently ineligible for a gun purchase.

Paint it whichever way you want, the man walked in with a piece of paper that said he had passed a background check within the last five years, and the seller had no legal responsibility to verify it was still valid.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 7, 18 11:02 AM
Again, we've seen nor heard anything to indicate he wasn't eligible to purchase the guns - only the sensationalized talking point. That's not painting a picture, that's just plain fact.
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 7, 18 12:28 PM
And whether he was or was not eligible is irrelevant because it wasn't checked, right?

The handguns still made their way to Staten Island without the seller assuring the buyer wasn't prohibited from owning guns at the time of purchase.

I'm checking the court filings regularly and will report back, though. If he was charged for having a firearm as a felon that tells us everything we need to know, right?
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 7, 18 12:42 PM
No. It's relevant because by all accounts, he was able to have them regardless.

The handguns made there way to Staten Island because the buyer if he was a felon, who would have found a way to get them regardless (because that's what criminals do), drove them there, and in the process, committed a felony.

If it turns out that he was a felon, then yes, it tells us the government failed again, and the Holy Grail in the eyes of the Left has been located and we shall commence to penalize ...more
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 7, 18 1:08 PM
...and that one way to prevent that failure would be to require current NICS checks for every purchase.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 7, 18 1:12 PM
What failure would that be? Crime happens. You couldn't be more incorrect in your assertion. Millions of records are missing from the database. Government can't police itself under the current system and placing burden on law abiding citizens is simply unacceptable and unrealistic.

Like most things enforcement related...if you strive and target the majority, you're doing good. Imposing burdens for 2-3 percent of the activity while infringing on what is considered a low level risk that has ...more
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 7, 18 1:54 PM
How big of a burden do you consider it to have your name searched in NICS?

Do you have any support for that 2-3% number yet?

What studies are you referring to?
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 7, 18 2:04 PM
Cost for one. That is a burden to the purchaser. People trade and sell firearms on a scale you can't even imagine - for reasons that are none of anyone's business. It covers everything from family, friends, collectors to the average person and none of it has to be justified to anyone. The focus should be on fixing the current system with millions upon millions of record missing from NICS, not on imposing restrictions to a very small percent of the population that is innocuously making transfers. ...more
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 7, 18 2:22 PM
Nice to see it's not a number you pulled from nowhere, though I'd have loved to know the first time I asked a couple of days back.

Did you realize those researchers also concluded that "consistent requirements across jurisdictions and a greater use of the log books by investigators could help locate people who own guns illegally and stem the flow of deadly firepower into the hands of people most likely to use it for violence"?

In other words, because these purchases were logged ...more
Mar 7, 18 2:35 PM appended by Fore1gnBornHBgrown
"If retail sales of ammunition were more tightly controlled to keep ammunition from falling into the wrong hands, would this squeeze the illegal market even further, and, perhaps, reduce gun violence?" I think it would, NIJ!
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 7, 18 2:35 PM
Want to find illegal guns? Go to any street corner in a tough neighorhood to buy one. Our justice Depts don't want to bother Undercover cops could do the job so easily if directed to. Not enough jails. But plenty of time to patrol our highways for speeders, tickets are profitable.
By Taz (414), East Quogue on Mar 7, 18 2:54 PM
Taz...please go to any street corner in a tough neighborhood and try to buy a gun. Just make sure someone is recording from a safe vantage point.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 7, 18 3:59 PM
I'm glad to see we're now miles away from protecting ou schools and have FINALLY gotten to the true intent of the Liberal agenda, not that we didn't know what it is all along....

Banning what you can't mandate and mandating what you can't ban.

Mar 7, 18 7:07 PM appended by Po Boy
NOW you're suggesting background checks on AMMO. You people! are something else! "If retail sales of ammunition were more tightly controlled" ... Congratulations, you just turned millions of law abiding citizens into criminals. COME AND GET IT!
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 7, 18 7:07 PM
I'm just citing your own source back at you facetiously. The NIJ apparently does some good work, though.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 7, 18 7:16 PM
And what they don't identify - how to enforce it in a free society with a second amendment. Sounds like nothing more a talking point...who can argue, right? They also identify two things... the true extent of problem private sales - 2-3%, and the consistent problem throughout the discussion... "greater use of the log books by investigators could help locate people who own guns illegally "...

...Begs the question, why aren't investigators already doing this? Yet another failure of government ...more
Mar 7, 18 7:41 PM appended by Po Boy
Sure, more government and regulation is the answer. Whatever us law abiding citizens can do to give up our RIGHTS, just let us know. Sure glad we're working toward common sense people control.
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 7, 18 7:41 PM
Lol, you're using research about ammunition to make a point about gun sales, and a bad one at that because even THAT research is a decade old and the Harvard/Northeastern studies were done in the last two years.
Mar 7, 18 7:58 PM appended by Fore1gnBornHBgrown
In other words, not only is the gun sales data more recent, it's more relevant to the question at hand: gun sales without background checks, which you don't think is a problem. I suppose you'd prefer 0% of sales requiring background checks than 100%
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 7, 18 7:58 PM
LOL. you're regulating ammo to curb gun sales and control law abiding people..while avoiding countless points about systemic problems.

1. millions of records currently missing from NICS
2. the fact that criminals will always get guns
3. regulating ammo sales
4. failure of enforcement
5. inability to enforce suggested "fixes."
6. Encroaching on law abiding citizens rights.
7. creating undue burdens on the law abiding
8. continued blaming of the gun, not the act ...more
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 7, 18 8:18 PM
I'm not even saying any of this will work, I'm just pointing out that there gaps in the law where you assert there are none.

Like when I point out that a person can buy 11 handguns without undergoing a same-day background check and you insist that they "run them anyway."

Well, they should. By penalty of law.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 7, 18 9:37 PM
There are gaps and subjectivity to EVERY law. Let me save you the time, if you're looking for "success" as completing background checks on 100% of gun sales it will leave you severely disappointed and looking for even MORE encroachment on the law abiding. I'M SHOCKED!

You want to close gaps? Get the millions upon millions of records into NICS that aren't there.

I'm just telling how it goes down based on my experience. There is a lot going on that is never reported because it doesn't ...more
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 7, 18 10:08 PM
Remember Nikolas Cruz?

He's that guy that bought guns in Staten Island and shot up that school killing 17, in Florida.

Nothing you are proposing in this thread would have stopped that. DON'T be part of the problem. Radical people control colors are not pretty.


By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 7, 18 10:12 PM
There's no recognized constitutional right to transfer a gun.

Yes, if grand-pappy puts a gun in the wrong hands he should be criminally liable.

There's no shady vans, but if you walk into an FFL in GA with a paper that says you're licensed to carry apparently nobody is verifying it, so that's one place to hide if someone's looking for shade.

We should definitely ensure our records are better-kept. Why not do that in addition to making sure guns are not easy to obtain by ...more
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 7, 18 10:14 PM
^^^^^^^ RADICAL PEOPLE CONTROL ADVOCATE ^^^^^^^^

This message has been brought to you by - No Radical Advocates (NRA).

See items 1-13 above for reference.

So poor grand pappy is SOL for something he had no control over. It gets better and better...why stop there... sue the firearm manufacturer... DOH!


Mar 7, 18 10:25 PM appended by Po Boy
Meanwhile, I bet you're for open borders and support what the Mayor of Oakland did outing ICE. Come on, fess up...we know... Illegal Criminals (YAY!) law abiding citizens (BOO!).
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 7, 18 10:25 PM
What do you mean?

If grand-pappy knowingly gives a felon a gun it's currently a crime.

If he gives a felon a gun without knowing, it's not.

Why shouldn't he be required to find out?
Mar 7, 18 10:30 PM appended by Fore1gnBornHBgrown
Borders ARE an obstacle for the human race in the longterm, but in the context of scarce resources they keep me fat and comfortable, so they are a necessary evil.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 7, 18 10:30 PM
I'm talk I wrote... "you want to put grand pappy in jail? Who is enforcing it for pete sake? Can't wait for the accessory to accessory to accessory to accessory to murder charges." AGAIN, you fail to see the complexity of the real world. Oh wait, people shouldn't be allowed to transfer guns, there is no constitutional right as you put it.

If you want to make US gun laws like wherever you came from, good luck. Ain't happening.
Mar 7, 18 10:42 PM appended by Po Boy
"Borders ARE an obstacle for the human race in the longterm"....THOUGHT SO. "An obstacle for the human race" Interesting. Just like the Second Amendment no doubt.
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 7, 18 10:42 PM
Again, yes. If grand-pappy knowingly gives a felon a gun, he's currently criminally liable.

He should be required to find out whether the recipient is a felon or not.
Mar 7, 18 10:48 PM appended by Fore1gnBornHBgrown
You ignored the "but" after the borders comment, but I guess I appreciate you're not advertising my selfish motives.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 7, 18 10:48 PM
Knowingly is already on the books.

Gun owners are responsible individuals and take many precautions on their own. Expanding background checks would not have stopped one mass shooting. It's a solution in search of a problem that serves no purpose other than incrementally feeding the Liberal agenda for gun registration and ultimately banning. Current law holds grand pappy to that same standard without that requirement.
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 7, 18 11:00 PM
It just makes it a lot easier for that transfer to happen unknowingly.
Mar 7, 18 11:02 PM appended by Fore1gnBornHBgrown
I also love "gun owners are responsible"...until they're not, right?
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 7, 18 11:02 PM
States are the decider of that.

Universal Background checks is tantamount to gun registration. Expanding the background check requirement is not the same as actually compelling people to perform background checks for private gun transfers. Many gun owners will balk at the inconvenience and expense of finding and paying a licensed dealer who is willing to facilitate a transaction. It's simple unenforceable as we found in Oregon in 2015. Local law enforcement publicly stated they did not ...more
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 7, 18 11:19 PM
Unenforceable sure, but not unpunishable if a crime occurs that could have been prevented by a background check.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 7, 18 11:24 PM
Without enforcement there is no punishment...and in the end, Liberals feel better about themselves, which as we know, is really what it's all about...along with winning elections.
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 7, 18 11:28 PM
Lol, so if a person fails to conduct their sale through an FFL in a mandatory jurisdiction, and the buyer turns out to be a person on the NICS who goes on to commit a heinous crime with that gun, you don't think they'll get charged?

Unenforceable means that there's no way for them to ensure it happens, not that they can't charge you with it later. Police don't decide charges, District Attorneys do.

We haven't even talked about what happens when a responsible gun owner dies. If ...more
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 7, 18 11:34 PM
Care to guess how many guns would have been lost, stolen or previously sold leading up to the law being passed?

Hint: There's roughly 300 million out there.

Again, you're showing your lack of knowledge. Most states have laws in place dictating estate protocol. Ho hum...

I know, so much people control to do, so little time.


By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 7, 18 11:40 PM
1 member liked this comment
Which goes back to the point about Chicago and Gary. It doesn't matter what laws NYC has when GA is consistently flooding the Iron Pipeline.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 8, 18 5:39 AM
That's not a GA or Gary problem, that's a NYC/Chicago problem.

Think of it this way, I learned a long time ago I am powerless as an individual to inflict my will on someone else. It only creates frustration and a host of other issues in attempting to do so. In this case, Chicago and NYC have chosen to inflict its will on other municipalities - and it is not surprisingly met with a corresponding downside - crime, gun flow. Another shining example of criminality adapting.

We're ...more
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 8, 18 11:11 AM
Fyi, Savanah, GA has a higher murder rate than Chicago, IL.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 8, 18 11:57 AM
FYI. Bull, not even close. Savannah is 21 and Chicago is 12. 50 murders vs. 765 at that.

12. Chicago, Illinois
> Murder rate: 28.1 per 100,000
> No. of murders: 765
> Violent crime rate: 1,105.5 per 100,000
> Population: 2,725,153

21. Savannah, Georgia
> Murder rate: 20.7 per 100,000
> No. of murders: 50
> Violent crime rate: 486.5 per 100,000
> Population: 241,296
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 8, 18 12:12 PM
Your numbers are correct for 2016. Mine were from 2015.
Mar 8, 18 12:36 PM appended by Fore1gnBornHBgrown
In context with cities in their size group, Chicago's murder rate was about two and a half times the average, while Savannah's was more than three times the average in 2016.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 8, 18 12:36 PM
And yet Savannah isn't even on the radar for the top 30 in 2018. At 54 murders in 2015 and similar in 2016, that's hardly data rich analysis. I do admire however that you've caught on to normalizing data for comparison sake. Bravo!

Assuming its even accurate, what pray tell does Chicago's murder rate being about two and a half times the average, while Savannah's was more than three times the average in 2016 tell us?
Mar 8, 18 1:16 PM appended by Po Boy
No matter how you prefer to slice it, defend it, minimize it, or explain it away, it's a Chicago people problem.
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 8, 18 1:16 PM
So more populated areas have more murders? What insight.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 8, 18 1:30 PM
Wait, when I made that argument about the population and mass shootings, you dismissed it. Unbelievable!

Not to mention...IF that stat is even accurate, you're certainly dismissive - 6 killed and 22 wounded on any given weekend in Chicago, but yet, the problem is much much worse in Savannah? You wouldn't be protecting the ulta-Democratic failure of a mayor, would you? You know, party above all else??

BTW, you brought up Chicago - "Which goes back to the point about Chicago and ...more
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 8, 18 3:47 PM
Just thought of this as well...the crimes stats are calculated per 1000,000 of population...that's a corresponding equivalent analysis of ANY city.

That song and dance of "In context with cities in their size group" is a bunch of hoo ha. Because that's not comparing Savannah, to Chicago, but Savannah to cities of similar population. IT'S APPLES AND ORANGES!
Mar 8, 18 3:57 PM appended by Po Boy
...100,000...
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 8, 18 3:57 PM
I was very clear with what I was comparing: to what degree both cities were above the average murder rate among cities with similar size populations.

Anyway, considering the murder rates in Savannah are higher than Chicago some years and lower others, one of us can conclude that Chicago's laws have no effect because gun control doesn't work, and the other can conclude that Chicago's laws have no effect because the surrounding areas have looser gun laws.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 8, 18 6:32 PM
So, from that we know that Savannah is higher than say, Sheboygan.

Yet, 100,000 people in Savannah is still be comparable to 100,000 people in Chicago...and the murder rate as well. Chicago leads! One can conclude that people control doesn't work.

Mar 9, 18 10:50 AM appended by Po Boy
Given that the year-end crime statistics showed there were 468 murders in Chicago in 2015 compared with 416 the year before, a 12.5% increase, as well as 2,900 shootings—13% more than the year prior, and up 29% since 2013. Chicago had more homicides than any other city in 2015, according to the Chicago Tribune - I question your 2015 statistics as well.
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 9, 18 10:50 AM
*led in 2016.

Savannah was ahead the year prior. Feel free to verify with the FBI's database, they put out detailed reports every year.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 9, 18 10:59 AM
I've found nothing in the FBI's data to correlate the claim. What I continue to find from other sources is Chicago remains the leader over several years.
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 9, 18 11:08 AM
Did you even look? Numbers for 2015:

Chicago murders: 478
Chicago population: 2,728,695
Murder rate (per 100k): 17.52

Savannah murders: 54
Savannah population: 240,178
Murder rate: 22.48
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 9, 18 11:14 AM
Sure did, haven't found that stat. I see that Savannah had an up year in 2015 - it's highest since 1991 apparently...it's an anomaly, and doesn't appear to be the norm.

To say, "Savannah, GA has a higher murder rate than Chicago, IL." simply wasn't true as a universal statement. Sure, it did in 2015, but clearly, Chicago is more consistent in that regard. Further, clearly they both have a people problem with the same element likely committing the same acts and as criminals do, they'd be ...more
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 9, 18 11:54 AM
For FBI statistics, a good place to start is FBI [dot] gov
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 9, 18 11:59 AM
Been there, done that...no dice.
Mar 9, 18 12:03 PM appended by Po Boy
Thanks Captain Obvious!
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 9, 18 12:03 PM
I can hold your hand if you'd like: click resources on the top bar, then crime statistics on the following page.

Use CTRL+F if you have a hard time finding it.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 9, 18 12:05 PM
Yup, been there done that.
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 9, 18 12:49 PM
You want the next clicks outlined? Normally I believe in teaching a man to fish, vut here's a handout:

Crime in the United States > 2015 > Violent Crime > murder > city agency > Table 8 > then just pick the state.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 9, 18 12:57 PM
No duh, but that doesn't get to this:

"Chicago's murder rate was about two and a half times the average, while Savannah's was more than three times the average in 2016"
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 9, 18 5:26 PM
The averages by city size were an option in the same section near "by city agency"

There's lots of great data if you're interested, just click around and have fun!
Mar 10, 18 9:41 PM appended by Fore1gnBornHBgrown
Lol "no duh" you're a riot, po.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 9, 18 9:41 PM
Do those countries have the 2nd amendment?

I think I will stick to living in this great country, thanks.
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 3, 18 8:55 PM
1 member liked this comment
Wait, I thought we need to make it great again? Or is it great?

Which is it? One would think it can't be in both states at once.

"Right Wing" logic, lol...
By Mr. Z (10097), North Sea on Mar 4, 18 10:06 PM
I can only assume that is directed at me Z. Have you ever seen me post MAGA?
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 5, 18 11:57 PM
apples and oranges JuneZ, perhaps yo would feel safer I one of the aforementioned countries, we have our 2A and they do not.
By bigfresh (3454), north sea on Mar 3, 18 9:52 PM
1 member liked this comment
Yes, the 2nd Amendment, and as we all know a "Well Regulated Militia" means that 18 year olds should be allowed to buy semi-automatic weapons along with an unlimited supply of high capacity magazines with endless bullets, upgraded to automatic with a bump stock, carry them publicly with no permit, and go anywhere they want. The NRA should take the New York State government all the way to the Supreme Court for limiting that right, and the US Congress should pass a law making sure that if I can carry ...more
By dfree (462), hampton bays on Mar 4, 18 10:17 AM
dfree, I noticed you didn't post anything about the mental capacity of the person purchasing.

For the record, I was against bump stocks before it became a rallying cry for the anti gun establishment but with the magazine capacity of NYS, bump stocks really aren't a big deal. They should be banned but with 7 round mag capacities they are severely limited to begin with.
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 4, 18 11:30 AM
The maximum mag capacity is 10, it's just not supposed to be full unless you're at the range.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 4, 18 11:37 AM
Hey thanks for the lesson fore. Spoken like someone who just learned yesterday.
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 4, 18 1:13 PM
Feel free to correct that statement if it's wrong, I'm a lifelong learner!
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 4, 18 1:18 PM
Well here’s a well earned pat on the back for the newbie. You’re trying too hard to sound educated on the subject. Experience trumps knowledge . Information isn’t the same as wisdom.
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 4, 18 1:30 PM
1 member liked this comment
I'm just correcting misinformation. There is no "7 round mag capacity" mentioned in the law.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 4, 18 1:51 PM
@bigfresh and @dnice:
In no way does the 2nd Amendment prevent limits on access, sales, or use of firearms. Our courts could easily make our laws as restrictive as some of the countries cited in the article.
Despite his deserved conservative reputation, in his majority Heller v.DC opinion, Scalia wrote that the right to bear arms has limits. “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the ...more
By June Bug (2029), SOUTHAMPTON on Mar 4, 18 2:12 PM
There is a 7 round max allowed in mags. Your splitting hairs to make your self sound educated on the subject.
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 4, 18 2:54 PM
JB, you are correct that firearms have been and should be regulated. No argument there.
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 4, 18 2:59 PM
Interesting headline? “LaValle helps block new gun laws” must’ve been taken...
By Brandon Quinn (137), Hampton Bays on Mar 3, 18 10:14 PM
And when the shrinking of weapons enables hand-held tactical nuclear RPG's, and the government agents have these weapons to use against the citizens, does that mean that we should all be able to buy them, per the Second Amendment?

Where does this Arms Race end?

Fiddle Fiddle Fiddle !!!
By Nero (249), Sag Harbor on Mar 4, 18 2:53 PM
Exactly the right question. And another---how is the obsessiveness over rights, acquisition, passionate defense of the 2nd, etc. not indicative of a form of mental illness, or at the very least psychological disorder? Ownership for "protection" implies anticipating worst-case scenarios which indicates paranoia, or a sense of powerlessness or weakness or underachievement that can be "overcome " with a gun. And ever more guns make me feel ever more powerful. Or when I own multiples of different ...more
By June Bug (2029), SOUTHAMPTON on Mar 4, 18 3:18 PM
Why go to extremes in your arguments. You just look ridiculous.

Implying that preparedness is paranoia is naive but don't worry the gov't is coming to save you.
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 4, 18 7:54 PM
Such an extreme reaction to factual information, Hon??? Oh, my.....
Perhaps Lyz Lenz, author of "Growing Up with White Paranoia: Persecution to Privilege" (Pacific Standard Magazine) would be interested in your judgment regarding the mindset in which she was raised and which broadly exists, apparently as far east as Hampton Bays:

" I heard our pastor, his mouth still full of brisket and coleslaw: “It’s good we have our guns. The next thing Clinton will ...more
By June Bug (2029), SOUTHAMPTON on Mar 5, 18 2:43 PM
Nothing factual about your post. You seem bitter and frustrated. Bitter and frustrated enough to comb the internet for extreme examples of paranoia and then trying to show a correlation between people who believe in self sufficiency with those who have been led to believe that tomorrow is the end. You seem like you are on the edge yourself JB.
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 5, 18 3:14 PM
1 member liked this comment
Nothing factual about your post, Hon.
Here's one, though: The common denominators in "self-sufficiency" and those expecting rapture are paranoia and a gun. Or more than likely, guns.
By June Bug (2029), SOUTHAMPTON on Mar 5, 18 7:17 PM
The more I read your posts the more I think you need to experience a little rapture.
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 5, 18 11:53 PM
One does wonder what all of those citizen militias are preparing for, though.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 6, 18 10:58 AM
Don't get me wrong Fore, there are some paranoid and militant groups in this country. The majority of gun owners are rational and law abiding. Gun grabbers love to paint with a wide brush.
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 6, 18 11:49 AM
1 member liked this comment
Violence is a last resort justifiable only in cases of outright, active violent tyranny where no political or judicial processes are available. The idea that American citizens, many veterans, are somehow chomping at the bit for a civil war is liberal slander.
Mar 6, 18 12:26 PM appended by dnice
Kurt Schlicter
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 6, 18 12:26 PM
Spoken like a true little liberal parrot JunZ, gold star for you, maybe a red star would be more appropriate though.
By bigfresh (3454), north sea on Mar 4, 18 3:52 PM
1 member liked this comment
[squawk]

"Liberalism is a mental disorder"

[squawk, squawk]
By Mr. Z (10097), North Sea on Mar 4, 18 10:28 PM
1 member liked this comment
Big fresh, Gold Star is for wives of kia servicemen. June doesn't deserve that star.
Sad to say, only 10% of congress have served out country...
By knitter (1207), Southampton on Mar 4, 18 4:15 PM
Simple solution Allow people to own the type of gun when the second amendment was written in 1789. I agree with the extra school safety issues but its not going to protect kids out on the playing fields or people in night clubs or concerts. Hence the whole burden does not belong on the schools.
By harbor man (33), sag harbor on Mar 4, 18 7:50 PM
There was an instance where a Minnesota third grader managed to discharge a resource officer's weapon. The officer was wearing a retention holder and a duty belt. The bullet ricocheted and lodged in a wall. A high school student in Michigan grabbed one's holster with enough force to discharge it. In Kansas, a student was arrested for attempting to obtain a resource officer's weapon. Weapons in schools one way or the other introduce risk. It's just a matter of degree.

More guns is escalation.
By Mr. Z (10097), North Sea on Mar 4, 18 10:23 PM
Z, I would love to see your source material( not doubting you but really want to read the circumstances). Guns don't go off by tugging on holsters. They just don't. The trigger needs to be pulled. That means you have to get your finger into the trigger well and depress it backwards. Depending on the firearm, there may even be a safety that needs to be disengaged first. Carelessness is usually the culprit and negligent discharges of firearms are usually blamed on things that were in the control ...more
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 5, 18 3:38 PM
harbor man, your solution might work if we could convince criminals to follow along. But they won't. Law abiding citizens will follow any new regulations, criminals and mentally deranged will not.

I agree that the burden cannot fall solely on the schools. There was a serious failure in the dissemination of information, the follow up of the agencies tasked with enforcement and the protocols of responding law enforcement.
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 5, 18 3:44 PM
A safety is only as good as the user; you might look at the female teacher who blew up a commode with her "good guy" handgun while taking a whiz or the male teacher who forgot to put his firearm back in his pocket in a middle school bathroom. Dopey people do dopey things; when it happens with guns it can be deadly.

You might also want to look at a million or more Taurus handguns that have an evil tendency to go off by themselves or millions of Remington rifles with a similar problem before ...more
Mar 6, 18 12:14 AM appended by VOS
I would add that while a simple water pistol can fall under the regulations of the Consumer Product Safety Commission no firearm nor its ammunition may by law be so treated because the self-serving pukes in government would prefer to assuage their NRA benefactors than save lives. Even when a clear, life threatening defect exists with such a product there would be no means to mount an effective recall without a product registration system. Experience has shown that small ads hidden in the back pages of gun publications, some even under the NRA umbrella, are not effective in remedying such defective firearm problems.
By VOS (1065), WHB on Mar 6, 18 12:14 AM
Vos, Taurus handguns had no such "tendency" Taurus recalled millions of guns because 9 were found to have defective parts that may have caused the pistol to discharge when dropped. Cases like this with handguns are extremely rare. Yes, dopey people do dopey things but the gun isn't deadly, the careless owner is.
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 6, 18 9:57 AM
1 member liked this comment
How dare Second Amendment advocates expect that those passionately arguing to limit their constitutional rights might have some rudimentary knowledge of the devices they want to ban or the current legislation in place already placing limits on them?
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 7, 18 7:52 PM
Are you still insisting that regulations can't possibly get more strict than the SAFE Act?
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 7, 18 7:59 PM
States are free to regulate as they see fit. Just as NY is, so is GA.
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 7, 18 8:20 PM
1 member liked this comment
Although it doesn't matter what laws Chicago passes when Gary, Indiana is a short drive up the road.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 7, 18 8:30 PM
Don't worry, people control has the unintended consequences of arming only the criminals. Gun rights, just the opposite.
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 7, 18 8:34 PM
Fore, are you still clinging to a lame argument you think you can win? Tame the ego, it's just the internet.
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 7, 18 8:52 PM
You are awfully sensitive Fore.
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 7, 18 8:53 PM
If we're asking people to have rudimentary knowledge we should start with our own, right?
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 7, 18 9:04 PM
If you had started with our own rudimentary knowledge you would not have been caught with your pants down.
Mar 7, 18 9:19 PM appended by dnice
your
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 7, 18 9:19 PM
I'm not the one who made an assertion so dumb a person with zero knowledge outside of the article you commented on could tell you it was wrong.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 7, 18 9:34 PM
Fore, I will let anyone willing to read to entire exchange make up their own mind. You were proven wrong( it was easy really) and you decided to grab onto one sentence and make it your defense, a desperate act for someone obviously incapable of admitting they were wrong. You were commenting on a law you admittedly hadn't even read. Btw, I didn't make an assertion, I asked you a question. Mildly humorous to think someone with such high regard their own intelligence (that would be you) couldn't ...more
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 7, 18 9:51 PM
And you asked how the law could possibly get more strict that the SAFE Act.

On an article about proposed laws stricter than the SAFE Act.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 7, 18 9:55 PM
Lol, so now it was a question instead of an assertion? I'm done debating this with you Fore. I'll leave you with this little piece of advice, if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 7, 18 10:04 PM
1 member liked this comment
It was an assertion in the form of a sarcastic question: "how could they possibly get more restrictive [than the SAFE Act]?"

At least we're now clear that the answer to your question is "in many different ways."
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 7, 18 10:09 PM
How do we keep our schools safe and free from the actions of murderes no matter what weapon they use.We have developed ways to make air travel safe now let’s focus on schools.Sad but necessary.
By watchdog1 (463), Southampton on Mar 5, 18 9:34 AM
I've read statistics that within 1 year in the U.S., some 6,000 people died in car crashes as a result of cell phones and drunk driving and I’ll bet everyone on this forum has witnessed people driving while talking on cellphones and personally know people that drink excessively that still get behind the wheel of a car or boat.
I don't support putting armed guards in the schools, nor do I support altering or restricting the 2nd amendment.
By pigroast (56), East Quogue on Mar 5, 18 10:09 AM
Chalk another person up for "let's do nothing and see if that works!"
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 5, 18 10:15 AM
1 member liked this comment
People control always works.
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 5, 18 10:49 AM
Isn't every criminal law an example of "people control"?

We seem to be doing pretty good, if that's the case.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 5, 18 2:34 PM
Then the gun or the NRA shouldn't be banned or blamed.
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 5, 18 3:23 PM
Schools may need to go to metal detecters and limit what may be brought into schools, staff also.
Mental health must be addressed and taken seriously. can't be afraid of the stigma of labels. Most of these tragedies were preventable by awareness of the perps. Police, FBI and the likes dropped the ball.
I look around here wonder about some students and teachers??? Do not give teachers guns, PLEASE...
By knitter (1207), Southampton on Mar 5, 18 10:45 AM
There is NO PLAN to arm all teachers, but to allow those with serious experience with firearms to conceal and carry. If Coacn in FL had firearm experience and wqas armed he could have ended firestorm and survived. Can you argue with that?Lives saved. PERIOD.
By Taz (414), East Quogue on Mar 5, 18 11:01 AM
The rapists in hollywood who put out profoundly violent gun flicks- voted for Clinton and are anti guns.

Let that one soak in for a moment.
By even flow (630), East Hampton on Mar 5, 18 11:17 AM
Is depicting violence as on-screen entertainment the same as condoning violence in real life?
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 5, 18 11:22 AM
Does flooding our society with violent movies which reflect that the use of guns is the way to mete out disagreements conflict with being critical of a society that too often uses guns to mete out disagreements.
By even flow (630), East Hampton on Mar 5, 18 12:10 PM
I don't think so because one is done purely for capitalistic and entertainment purposes, while the other is carried out on an individual level by people with varying motivations that can't be summarized easily.

Also, one results in real deaths.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 5, 18 12:18 PM
no more than protecting the 2A is the same as condoning gun violence
By bigfresh (3454), north sea on Mar 5, 18 12:38 PM
Ask Clint Eastwood
By Mets fan (1130), Southampton on Mar 6, 18 5:49 AM
1 member liked this comment
Ask Clint what exactly Mf?
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 7, 18 9:28 PM
Since you don't like it when I speak for others, I'll just point out your lack of reading comprehension without answering your question.
Mar 8, 18 9:33 PM appended by Fore1gnBornHBgrown
But I'm sure you can figure it out if you follow the comment chain...I believe in you!
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 7, 18 9:33 PM
Gee thanks Fore.
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 8, 18 7:55 AM
1 member liked this comment
OSCARS
RATINGS PLUNGE; ALL TIME LOW?

YOUTUBE hits INFOWARS with third strike as fight goes nuclear...CNN PUSHES AD BAN...
By 27dan (2330), Shinnecock Hills on Mar 5, 18 11:42 AM
And the double edge sword slashes deep...


More than 4,000 apply for East Hampton’s Section 8 waiting list

The lucrative summer rental market and a lack of units helps drive up demand in the town, which has the highest percentage of full-time residents living below the poverty line than any other town in Suffolk County.

"The median home sale price in 2017 in the Hamptons market was $993,475, according to data compiled by Town and Country Real Estate. Yet, 10 ...more
By Mr. Z (10097), North Sea on Mar 5, 18 5:39 PM
RICHEST 10% HOLD 80% OF STOCK MARKET VALUE

54% of AMERICAN Households OWN NO STOCK in any form.

Wealthy made TRILLIONS in stock boom. Add $1.5 TRILLION in TAX CUTS.

Wealth Inequality GROWING BIGLY.

80% of workers living PAYCHECK to PAYCHECK.

AND NO END IN SIGHT, tRUMPERS.
By June Bug (2029), SOUTHAMPTON on Mar 5, 18 7:03 PM
Yes!Our society has been numbed to violence by video games, movies, and tv shows. Especially our youth, who by definition have no respect for their own mortality, have been affected in the most egregious way.
By Taz (414), East Quogue on Mar 5, 18 11:43 AM
So does the context of the violence matter ("righteous" violence vs. "malevolent" violence) make a difference?

Does it matter if the movie/game/tv show is about a "good guy" committing violence? Or does any depiction of violence convey the message that "violence is ok/good/acceptable" regardless of the character or their motivations?

Does it matter whether that violence is fictional or non-fictional? Will a documentary about Iraq and Afghanistan foster the same lack of regard for ...more
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 5, 18 11:50 AM
I know what Fore asking nothing but questions means, and it isn't because he's genuinely curious.

LMAO!
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 5, 18 12:59 PM
I'm asking these particular questions because I find them interesting to think about.

Why do you think I'm asking?
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 5, 18 1:01 PM
You wingers really should have those knees checked for their jerkiness. You even have an issue when there's a demonstration of curiosity and attention to an issue longer than the time it takes to absorb a bumper sticker? Then coupled with a need to be suspicious of motives? Good lord.
By June Bug (2029), SOUTHAMPTON on Mar 5, 18 1:28 PM
If guns cause crime, mine are defective.
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 5, 18 1:55 PM
4 members liked this comment
Ask any veteran with PTSD if violence against bad guys is not a problem. Fictional or real, exposure to violence normalizes it, i.e. makes it acceptable.
By Taz (414), East Quogue on Mar 5, 18 12:02 PM
I don't necessarily agree that carrying out violence firsthand is equivalent to viewing or carrying it out in a fictional or educational context, though that presumes the viewer or player has the capacity to tell the difference.

Regardless, I appreciate your consistency.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 5, 18 12:24 PM
1 member liked this comment
"There will always be those who mean to do us harm. To stop them, we risk awakening the same evil in ourselves."

~ Chris Pine as James T. Kirk, "Star Trek: Into Darkness"
By Mr. Z (10097), North Sea on Mar 5, 18 8:04 PM
Come back and talk to me when I can buy a phaser and set it on stun. Until then the Glock will have to suffice!
By joe hampton (3096), The Hamptons on Mar 6, 18 5:48 PM
Are you truly that small minded, or are you feebly attempting to be facetious?
By Mr. Z (10097), North Sea on Mar 7, 18 12:01 AM
Many of the video games today require active participation in the violence, some even wear headgear for "hologram" type involvement. Not good.
By Taz (414), East Quogue on Mar 5, 18 12:44 PM
You're talking about the advent of 3D, something that has been promised to us since the 80s!

Today's technology definitely allows for more realistic-looking media than ever before. Whether its ubiquity is good or bad is beyond me, but it certainly poses greater challenges for parents trying to moderate their kids' media diet.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 5, 18 1:57 PM
Mine have no problem differentiating between fantasy and reality... Maybe you should sit yours down and have a talk from time to time.
By joe hampton (3096), The Hamptons on Mar 6, 18 5:50 PM
The United States is 3rd in murders throughout the world.

But if you take out just 5 Democrat controlled cities: Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC, St Louis and New Orleans -- the United States is 4th FROM THE BOTTOM, in the ENTIRE planet, for murders.
By SlimeAlive (816), Southampton on Mar 6, 18 12:01 PM
The US is third in murders because it has the third-largest population.

The murder rate in the U.S. is about 2/3 of the international average.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 6, 18 12:10 PM
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By pw herman (932), southampton on Mar 6, 18 5:57 PM
No?
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 6, 18 7:22 PM
You can thank 2A for ensuring 1A.
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 7, 18 9:08 AM
1 member liked this comment
I don't think either 2A or 1A helps protect my comments on this privately owned comment section.

Instead, I'll thank the Press for effective moderation.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 7, 18 9:54 AM
Well, that's a problem. What do you think ensures their right to do so?
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 7, 18 10:54 AM
Let's put this another way: the 1A doesn't protect my comments from being deleted by the Press, and using my 2A to prevent them from deleting by comments will result with my A in jail.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 7, 18 10:58 AM
So you do not think that you tube only demonetizing accounts they disagree with a problem ? Would you feel the same way if they were blocking story's from mother Jones instead of Info Wars ?
By They call me (2333), southampton on Mar 7, 18 11:29 AM
Whichever way I feel about particular content being discriminated against is irrelevant to whether it's within their rights to discriminate against it, right?
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 7, 18 11:40 AM
Conservatives better design their own platforms and social networks fast.Boycott anything that you feel will have the slightest effect financially against this tyranny. You cannot rely on platforms where Demo-Marxists and globalists hold the keys. It's a waste of time. Conservative thought needs to have it's own controlled platform. Leninist style things like " mass action ", net neutrality and the fairness doctrine are Marxist tools, until people understand that , and physically support the very ...more
By Ditch Bum (466), Water Mill on Mar 7, 18 11:43 AM
Or if you're not inclined to start your own politically-motivated video streaming service you can similarly withdraw from reality by living a minimalist lifestyle and increasing your self-sustainability, that way even if you fail to impact the zeitgeist you're still helping the environment!
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 7, 18 11:57 AM
The media is obviously losing the battle. They don’t want to hear, see or smell the revolution and the what they deem the hatred they have aroused in the deplorables.

The move by news sites and social media to squelch opinion (no comments allowed) is a last ditch attempt to censor and control the narrative.

The propaganda machine we call “mainstream media” is failing, and those responsible are scared s*less. People are calling out the bulls* a.k.a. “fake ...more
By Undocumented Democrat (1666), southampton on Mar 7, 18 11:57 AM
yes, it seems they control the university's and social media for now, and even if we play by there rules it is not good enough.

i must say, in my daily encounters it seems people are waking up to the un balanced censorship very quickly. and fighting back with boycotting . take the oscars rating disaster for example. we the people will not be taking it any longer !
By Erin 27 E (1025), hampton bays on Mar 7, 18 12:02 PM
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By bigfresh (3454), north sea on Mar 6, 18 12:11 PM

Town of Lisdoonvarna, Forced to Take Hundreds of Migrants Despite 93% Vote Against
By 27dan (2330), Shinnecock Hills on Mar 7, 18 11:03 AM
Diversity for diversity's sake is foolish.
By bigfresh (3454), north sea on Mar 7, 18 12:15 PM
1 member liked this comment
Diversity has intangible benefits like exposure to people and ideas different from one's own.

As the world becomes smaller we'd be wise to get along, even when we disagree.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 7, 18 12:51 PM
says Fore1gnBornHBgrown to the 93 % of the above village who voted NO! to this illegal action by the globalist EU

Its not you wive or daughters who will have there world turned upside down is it !

again we the people are tired of the - we the goverment know whats best for you attitude !!!
By Erin 27 E (1025), hampton bays on Mar 7, 18 1:15 PM
I'm not talking about that specific action, just like I don't necessarily agree with all ways that affirmative action is carried out, I was replying in general terms to BF's assertion that promoting diversity is done only "for diversity's sake"
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 7, 18 1:19 PM
Ars Gratia Artis
By Mr. Z (10097), North Sea on Mar 7, 18 9:33 PM
HUNGARIAN MINISTER: VIENNA IS INCREASINGLY CRIME-RIDDEN SINCE MIGRANTS BEGAN LIVING THERE
Austria’s capital “is dirtier, poorer and increasingly crime-ridden since migrants began living there”Lazar concludes “a city within a city” is created and if Hungary’s not careful its capital could look Vienna within 20 years. “There are a great number of schools in Vienna where there are no white Viennese children left, only the children of Muslim immigrants and ...more
By 27dan (2330), Shinnecock Hills on Mar 8, 18 9:09 AM
yes, it is truly crazy watching these once beautiful places so full of rich culture and tradition being destroyed one after an other before our eyes, this whole issue of radical islam in the west, including in america, is like watching someone commit suicide right before your eyes, and they have already jumped off the bridge, so now you are just watching them head toward their fate. very sad.....
By Erin 27 E (1025), hampton bays on Mar 8, 18 9:20 AM
My quote was "diversity for diversity's sake is foolish".
By bigfresh (3454), north sea on Mar 9, 18 11:57 AM
And who is responsible? Who destroyed the 8,000 years of rich culture and tradition of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11? Families destroyed, memories erased, libraries and archives burned, historic buildings plundered, museum contents and archaeological sites looted. This is on us, sister friend. Unlike Vietnam, we are not exposed to the crushing devastation and suffering of this seemingly never ending war which is akin to the Crusades of yore. Save one lone dissenter, every single ...more
Mar 12, 18 10:05 PM appended by June Bug
Responding to Erin 27E.
By June Bug (2029), SOUTHAMPTON on Mar 11, 18 10:05 PM
War for war's sake?
By Mr. Z (10097), North Sea on Mar 13, 18 7:54 PM
LaValle should be voted out of office with the rest of the GOP cronies
By TEB (1), Westhampton on Mar 8, 18 5:01 PM
New Monmouth poll:

69% of *NRA members* support comprehensive background checks on all gun purchases, including private sales.
By June Bug (2029), SOUTHAMPTON on Mar 8, 18 8:05 PM
I agree because it will protect my rights.
By dnice (2332), Hampton Bays on Mar 8, 18 10:15 PM
Since you decided to not answer me yeasterday...

Again should we ban driving a vehicle, since they killers have used them to successfully harm more people than mass shootings ? How about knives ? or pressure cookers ?

How about we start with common sense measures like to harden our schools and protect the children from all of these threats!

Maybe we can agree with a compromise like green lighting US citizens by default to purchase a fire arm. No registry ! With severe ...more
By joe hampton (3096), The Hamptons on Mar 10, 18 3:48 PM
3 members liked this comment
Thank Christ the hoodlums in Chicago will have to register their guns.
By pw herman (932), southampton on Mar 10, 18 4:04 PM
1 member liked this comment

Ha, just two weeks ago your idol was advocating confiscation without due process. It is to laugh.
By June Bug (2029), SOUTHAMPTON on Mar 11, 18 10:29 PM
Donald Trump Reveals Re-Election Slogan: ‘I Can’t Say Make America Great Again Because We Already Did That

’Maxine Waters – a low IQ individual.” We already knew that.
It is to laugh.
By Undocumented Democrat (1666), southampton on Mar 12, 18 1:22 AM
1 member liked this comment
@Undocumented:
Oh, really? I'll save the whole list for another time, but meantime, here's just one aspect of our "greatness":

U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World
By MELISSA HELLMANN June 17, 2014
TIME Health

The U.S. health care system has been subject to heated debate over the past decade, but one thing that has remained consistent is the level of performance, which has been ranked as the worst among industrialized nations for the fifth time, ...more
By June Bug (2029), SOUTHAMPTON on Mar 12, 18 11:01 AM
SUPERSTAR IVANKA SETTLES INTO DC ROLE...


Elizabeth Warren refuses DNA test to prove Native American heritage...It is to laugh.
By Undocumented Democrat (1666), southampton on Mar 12, 18 1:25 AM
Mueller to Ivanka: "what exactly would you say you do here?"
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 12, 18 7:00 AM
To you : where did you say you're from exactly ?
By pw herman (932), southampton on Mar 12, 18 9:22 AM
Hampton Bays, why do you ask?
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 12, 18 10:33 AM
Do you mean to tell me "family stories"...... is not enough evidence ???
Hahahaah
By Sturgis (355), Southampton on Mar 12, 18 10:52 AM
Hillary should stop focusing on gun dangers and start worrying more about stair case danger!

Hillary slips down stairs yet again in India today — despite two men holding her up?

Waaa Just WTF is wrong with this woman ?

~ Nothing, nothing there is nothing to see here ~ ROTFLOL
By 27dan (2330), Shinnecock Hills on Mar 13, 18 12:20 AM
Weekend at Hillary’s.Hysterical!!
By Ditch Bum (466), Water Mill on Mar 13, 18 12:26 AM
Hillary who?
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 13, 18 9:21 AM
She's that wretched, corrupt criminal you voted for who just won't go away, and who continues to claim President Donald Trump only won the election because he got the support of people she (in)famously called “deplorables.”

Ring a bell?
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 13, 18 10:57 AM
2 members liked this comment
I'm aware she's a failed presidential candidate, but I mean who is she NOW and why do we care what she has to say?

She certainly doesn't represent anyone but herself.
Mar 13, 18 11:07 AM appended by Fore1gnBornHBgrown
Even better, the story above isn't about anything she said but a slip down some stairs...who cares???
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 13, 18 11:07 AM
She most certainly does represent others.

We should care because she continues to thrust herself into the headlines statements, and as such, continues to be a voice of the Democratic party. Just two hours ago, she blamed "'pressure' from men for why white women voted for Trump."
Mar 13, 18 11:14 AM appended by Po Boy
...headlines with ignorant statement...
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 13, 18 11:14 AM
1 member liked this comment
She can say whatever she wants in front of whoever wants to listen.

She doesn't hold elected office, doesn't hold any position of power in the Democratic Party, and is not running for anything.

She was politely shown the door after the election as is customary for failed presidential candidates and is a private citizen who officially represents nobody.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 13, 18 11:20 AM
And having been a voice of the Democratic Party in the (recent) past she will continue to be viewed as such by those who want to listen and those that hear it as nails on a chalk board.

Her status is irrelevant. By injecting herself and spewing her venomous hatred that resonates with those that want to listen, aka Democratic voters, the Democratic party will have to deal with it.
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 13, 18 11:49 AM
2 members liked this comment
she was falling down like this for the entire year she was "campaigning" but the main stream media would not report on it. the only place you could see it was on the independent news sites on you tube, you know the same sites that they are trying to censor now !
By Erin 27 E (1025), hampton bays on Mar 13, 18 11:54 AM
1 member liked this comment
Sorry. Hillbot is irrelevant and trying to tie her to the Democratic party shows that hatred toward her and Obama are the only thing that unifies the Republican party.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 13, 18 1:22 PM
Hatred so over the top as a result of having it shoved down your throats by the forces of the RW intent on their successful mission to destroy her with manufactured BS looks like a form of mental illness.
By saying over and over that someone did something wrong, did something wrong, did something wrong, but you never prove it, then you need to own you're just an a**hole. And until you start complaining about the likes of Newt Gingrich "not going away", you'll continue to be viewed ...more
By June Bug (2029), SOUTHAMPTON on Mar 13, 18 1:42 PM
< - - - - Here is you proof ..... lol
By 27dan (2330), Shinnecock Hills on Mar 13, 18 5:46 PM
1 member liked this comment
Proof of what?
Furthermore, how does one even know it's Hillary under that hat? Care to direct us to a better quality video?
Mar 13, 18 6:35 PM appended by June Bug
No sign at all of illness. She slipped descending a steep set of stairs while touring an ancient fort. That there was someone on either side of her was no doubt intentionally precautionary, and as it turned out, fortuitous. After the second time her foot slipped out from under her, she kicked off her shoes and continued in bare feet.
By June Bug (2029), SOUTHAMPTON on Mar 13, 18 6:35 PM

We know that Hillary fainted while recovering from pneumonia. Wonder how? Why, thanks to the "main stream" media, of course.
So "sick" was Hillary that she was able to withstand the rigors of excessively long days on the campaign trail AND on one occasion withstand ELEVEN STRAIGHT HOURS testifying before Congress with just a single short break.
Now we hear from someone who apparently has knowledge that has eluded the rest of us.
Please provide names of the ...more
Mar 13, 18 7:08 PM appended by June Bug
And if in fact Hillary is ill, where is the decency in making infirmity a subject of ridicule? Is there no bottom to the derangement continuously on display?
By June Bug (2029), SOUTHAMPTON on Mar 13, 18 7:08 PM
Oh you didnt hear about this ? Its no wonder they are not reporting on it over at PMSNBC - Twice-defeated presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was caught falling twice in India Monday.
The second time happened as two men attempted to help her down 15 stairs at Jahaz Mahal in New Delhi. Clinton loses her sandals as she nears the end of the stairs.
“Clinton was in the country promoting her book, ‘What Happened,'” writes The New American. “Yes, she’s still bitter ...more
Mar 13, 18 8:11 PM appended by Undocumented Democrat
Hillary Clinton Nearly Falls Down Stairs In India Twice! - YouTube
By Undocumented Democrat (1666), southampton on Mar 13, 18 8:11 PM
P O Garbage, She doesn't have the American media and our tax payer dollars to cover that up over there.
By local 84 (320), riverhead on Mar 13, 18 8:14 PM
LOL can you imagine "that" running the US..... we dodged a huge disaster folks
By local 84 (320), riverhead on Mar 13, 18 8:16 PM
Everyone else in the video appeared to do just fine, That’s what Xanax will do to ya. And this is who people wanted to be POTUS!?!?

MAGA 2020
By Ditch Bum (466), Water Mill on Mar 14, 18 12:18 AM
"Breaking News: old person stumbles. More at 10!"
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 14, 18 5:34 AM
2 members liked this comment
Hillary Clinton must have her own Doctor Theodor Morell.
By pw herman (932), southampton on Mar 14, 18 7:33 AM
The Russians must have greased the steps.

By Ditch Bum (466), Water Mill on Mar 14, 18 8:33 AM
1 member liked this comment
We know the Russians greased the palm of the Clinton Foundation amid the Uranium One deal!
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 14, 18 2:40 PM
1 member liked this comment

NEW BRUNSWICK — Tickets for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's appearance at Rutgers University were in such high demand that the school moved it to a larger location.

The school announced on Monday that rather than holding the March 29 event at the College Avenue Gymnasium, it will instead be held at the Rutgers Athletic Center in Piscataway. The Eagleton Institute of Politics said the move was being made "due to the extraordinary level of interest" in the program.
By June Bug (2029), SOUTHAMPTON on Mar 14, 18 3:01 PM
DIAMOND and SILK ROCK !!!!!!!!!!
By pw herman (932), southampton on Mar 15, 18 7:20 AM
June, may I suggest that you and Fore take a moment to figure out whether or not Hillary is a voice of the Democrat Party and voter. When you figure it out, get back to us.

2,500 to 8,000 capacity and moving the venue from "the barn" to "the RAC"...LMAO.
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 15, 18 8:18 AM
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has witnessed a 1,200% surge in 18-year-old to 20-year-old members in the weeks since the firearm-based attack on Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.
The surge for that age group is unprecedented for SAF and is the result of grassroots interest in gun rights.
Mar 13, 18 6:03 PM appended by Undocumented Democrat
A message for the 18 - 20-year-olds in Florida. The moment the government makes it illegal for you to own a gun......is the exact minute you should be arming yourself!!! Millions of young people having their 2nd Amendment rights trampled on due to one little puke named Nikolas Cruz. One guy.......affecting millions of law abiding citizens. I really hope these politicians rethink the fairness of this before they pass a bunch of laws.
By Undocumented Democrat (1666), southampton on Mar 13, 18 6:03 PM
1 member liked this comment
"THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HAS, AFTER A 14 MONTH LONG IN-DEPTH INVESTIGATION, FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION OR COORDINATION BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND RUSSIA TO INFLUENCE THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION,"

IT'S OFFICIALLY OVER !
By They call me (2333), southampton on Mar 13, 18 8:23 PM
Translation:

"We investigated ourselves, and found no evidence of wrongdoing."
By Mr. Z (10097), North Sea on Mar 13, 18 8:29 PM
Go Mueller Go!
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2799), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 14, 18 5:31 AM
Yes, time for Mueller to go!
By Po Boy (1690), Water Mill on Mar 14, 18 8:58 AM
1 member liked this comment
#TimesUp for the GOP. Lamb wins in PA.
By johnj (798), Westhampton on Mar 14, 18 9:11 AM
1 member liked this comment
In unrelated news democrats were trounced in a special election in Tennessee last night. Funny I didn't hear any thing about that one.

Lamb is a democrat I could get behind but the whole "primaries" process rarely allows a candidate like that to advance. Lamb is anti abortion, for the 2nd amendment and anti Pelosi. The only democrat ideology he follows is to not reform Medicare/SS.
By razza5350 (1895), East Hampton on Mar 14, 18 9:44 AM
1 member liked this comment
KUDLOW JOINING WHITE HOUSE...Excelent !
By 27dan (2330), Shinnecock Hills on Mar 15, 18 8:16 AM
Trey Gowdy should be our Attorney General.

Drain the swamp
By Undocumented Democrat (1666), southampton on Mar 16, 18 9:32 AM
A cocaine addict on record as colossally wrong at every turn since at least '05 is your idea of an excellent choice? Figures.
Mar 18, 18 11:14 AM appended by June Bug
Responding to 27Dan, and referring to Kudlow.
By June Bug (2029), SOUTHAMPTON on Mar 17, 18 11:14 AM
"Crimes may have been committed.”
–Senators Graham and Grassley on the
need for a SECOND special counsel.
By loading... (544), quiogue on Mar 16, 18 12:05 PM
1 member liked this comment
Yes, one special counsel isn't enough to investigate all the crimes/wrongdoing of trump and Jared and Flynn and Gates and Manifort and Ivanka and Mnuchin and Zinke and Pruitt and Carson and Sessions and and and.... The irony of the likes of dirty, lying Sessions firing anyone boggles the mind. Ohhhh the blowback's gonna' be delicious.
Mar 17, 18 12:07 PM appended by June Bug
The one we thought might have a halo? Think again: James Mattis is linked to a massive corporate fraud and nobody wants to talk about it Better let a scandal slide than risk a nuclear war. By Matthew Yglesias@mattyglesiasmatt@vox.com Mar 16, 2018, 9:00am EDT
By June Bug (2029), SOUTHAMPTON on Mar 17, 18 12:07 PM
bay street, theatre, events, shows, sag harbor