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

Story - News

Mar 20, 2018 4:17 PMPublication: The East Hampton Press

UPDATE: Southampton And Sag Harbor To Participate In National Marches Protesting Gun Violence On Saturday

Mar 22, 2018 9:50 AM

UPDATE: WEDNESDAY, 11:25 A.M.

Residents of Southampton Village will hold its own community march protesting gun violence on Saturday, March 24. The march, called "March For Safe Schools," will start at noon on Saturday with participants walking from Town Hall to Agawam Park. According to the advertisement for the march, it is "NOT a protest for or against gun laws" but meant for the community to show concerns for local school children and "children around the country."

ORIGINAL STORY

East End residents will get the chance to participate in the national March For Our Lives on Saturday, March 24, as an event is planned in Sag Harbor as part of the national protest.

Marchers can meet in Sag Harbor at Long Wharf by the windmill at 11 a.m. Marchers will walk one loop around Main Street, then return to the windmill for a “peaceful protest,” according to a flier for the event, which has been organized by 18-year-old Sag Harbor resident and Pierson Middle/High School senior Sinéad Murray. There will be speakers at the event.

The march is meant to protest gun violence in light of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, on Valentine’s Day.

The national march is set to take place in Washington, D.C., with more than 500,000 people expected to attend.

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

Protesting gun violence in schools is laudable. Protesting legal gun ownership is not.
By bigfresh (3567), north sea on Mar 21, 18 6:45 AM
2 members liked this comment
This is where you let fear control you. No one is "coming for your guns". Sane law abiding people want more done in society to keep them out of the wrong hands.

How did it go when Obama came to your doorstep to take yours away?
By Mr. Z (10235), North Sea on Mar 21, 18 7:04 AM
Obama flinched, that's what he always did.
By pw herman (1010), southampton on Mar 21, 18 7:50 AM
No, PW. He was never coming to take your guns and the industry simply put that in your heads to raise sales and boost their stock prices.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (3311), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 21, 18 7:58 AM
2 members liked this comment
Correct. Obama was actually into giving guns away, fast and furiously.
By dnice (2339), Hampton Bays on Mar 21, 18 9:37 AM
1 member liked this comment
That Obama's administration ran guns for the Mexican cartels is one of the most shameful parts of his neoliberal agenda that doesn't get talked about enough, and this is coming from an Obama fan.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (3311), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 21, 18 9:43 AM
1 member liked this comment
I don't know if industry caused it, or it was simply panic buying by Americans fearing something bad was coming following post Sandy Hook. In any event, only in the past 12-18 months has inventory on ammo returned to normal. Western Cartridge Co. and all the others made an absolute fortune and couldn't keep up with demand, even when the factories were running 24/7 for years.
By BruceB (136), Sag Harbor on Mar 21, 18 12:52 PM
Interesting BruceB. I've read George Soros and maybe others made a fortune off the Las Vegas shooting, buying puts in MGM stock in advance thus making MILLIONS when the stock price dropped after the shooting. Quite the gamble, and something to the tune of $73 million.

Ain't that something given his tentacles are funding the anti-gun demonstrations.
By Mr. Snerdley (386), Southampton on Mar 21, 18 7:36 PM
FBHB is correct.

SUCKERS.
By Mr. Z (10235), North Sea on Mar 21, 18 8:00 PM
$73 Million, who is the suckers?
By Po Boy (1968), Water Mill on Mar 21, 18 8:15 PM
$73 million? Try closer to 1 billion dollars in sales in the past 5 years on firearm sales and ammo. that's real money! It makes you wonder about who the real stockholders are in these companies.
By BruceB (136), Sag Harbor on Mar 21, 18 11:06 PM
2 members liked this comment
My post consists of 2 simple sentences and does not mention any of the points you are attempting to assign to me, nice projection though.
By bigfresh (3567), north sea on Mar 21, 18 7:32 AM
2 members liked this comment
Is it also laudable to protest the fact that the perpetrator of gun violence was able to get a gun despite a violent history?
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (3311), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 21, 18 7:49 AM
The problem was he had no "history" that any gun law would have stopped because no one ever did anything that would create a record. If the school and the SRO had followed through with the recommended Baker Acting of Cruz in 2016 he would have never been able to buy the guns in Florida. The laws are there but it takes action by people to make them work. New law/more laws are just redundant and won't solve anything.
By localEH (301), East Hampton on Mar 21, 18 12:39 PM
Getting Baker act'ed only guarantees deprivation of gun ownership for 48 hours.

Unless you're saying he would have definitely been committed beyond the 48 hour observation period, that wouldn't have stopped the mass shooting.

A good law that would have definitely prevented him from buying guns at a store is if violent school suspensions had mandatory reporting to the NICS.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (3311), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 21, 18 12:52 PM
Nikolas Cruz committed his unspeakable act after officials recommended he be forcibly committed as early as 2016, but the recommendation was NEVER acted upon.

This would have been the first sure step in ensuring he did not have the ability to legally purchase a firearm. Whether he would be allowed to purchase a firearm would have been determined by the assessment of his mental health.
Mar 21, 18 4:17 PM appended by Mr. Snerdley
"involuntary commitment of that kind, under the authority of a Florida state law known as the Baker Act, could have kept Mr. Cruz from passing a background check required to buy a firearm." School Officials Wanted Florida Gunman Committed Long Before a Massacre By PATRICIA MAZZEI. MARCH 18, 2018
By Mr. Snerdley (386), Southampton on Mar 21, 18 4:17 PM
Thank goodness the Youth in this country is waking up and leading the charge for change.
By tenn tom (196), remsenburg on Mar 21, 18 8:15 AM
Read my first post Foreign, that's all .
By bigfresh (3567), north sea on Mar 21, 18 9:06 AM
I'm just saying that protesting about legal things to make them illegal, or about illegal things to make them legal, is a celebrated part of American history.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (3311), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 21, 18 9:51 AM
I'll control my guns.

Please control your kids.
By Po Boy (1968), Water Mill on Mar 21, 18 9:53 AM
Exactly!!
By localEH (301), East Hampton on Mar 21, 18 12:40 PM
Fore, if the school, police and fbi followed up on what the teachers brought up before, he would not have been able to buy a gun. It is easier to buy a gun illegally on the street. Look at chicago, california and New York, they have the strictest gun laws and the highest illegal gun incidents in the US.
A march in memory of the people killed and wounded there would be well received...
By knitter (1303), Southampton on Mar 21, 18 12:45 PM
It doesn't matter what laws Chicago, Illinois pases when Gary, Indiana is right up the road.

You may have missed the conversation about how 11 handguns made their way from Georgia to New York a few weeks back: they were bought legally without background checks.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (3311), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 21, 18 12:59 PM
No they weren't bought legally. The fact that the intent was to traffic them 700 miles north to sell made that an illegal sale.

BTW two men were charged with the crime...not the guns, they were just along for the ride...and didn't "make their way from Georgia to New York..."

By Po Boy (1968), Water Mill on Mar 21, 18 3:22 PM
Oh, so I guess he forgot to check the "I intend to sell these in New York" box.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (3311), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 21, 18 4:24 PM
I'd defer to the actual charges against the individuals which "might" have something to do with trafficking.
By Po Boy (1968), Water Mill on Mar 21, 18 6:25 PM
If only there was some kind of background check system that was required for all gun sales.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (3311), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 21, 18 6:50 PM
If only we could pass a law that criminals would follow.
By Po Boy (1968), Water Mill on Mar 21, 18 7:18 PM
1 member liked this comment
If a gun sale to someone without a background check is not illegal, there is no incentive to check that person's background.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (3311), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 21, 18 7:21 PM
Exactly. Only those with clear backgrounds would purchase.
By Po Boy (1968), Water Mill on Mar 21, 18 7:26 PM
If a background check is required for every transfer, then only those with clear backgrounds would purchase.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (3311), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 21, 18 7:28 PM
See all the clear purchasers? Criminals don't follow the law.

March to Date Chicago
Shot & Killed: 18
Shot & Wounded: 82
Total Shot: 100
Total Homicides: 23

By Po Boy (1968), Water Mill on Mar 21, 18 7:49 PM
13% of guns found at crime scenes in New York are trafficked from Georgia. It's called the "iron pipeline" for a reason.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (3311), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 21, 18 7:56 PM
Yes, you've provided the reference in the past, one can only assume, they were bought by someone who passed the background check....because... how else would they know where they came from???

Clearly, your personal issue is universal background checks. There is only one problem...

It's not enforceable given it would require....GUN REGISTRATION. Hmmm, maybe that's the Fore end game....what say you Fore, are you Fore gun registration?

By Po Boy (1968), Water Mill on Mar 21, 18 8:10 PM
Fore, criminals using guns? The heck you say.
By dnice (2339), Hampton Bays on Mar 21, 18 8:40 PM
Well, I don't know that it's my personal issue, but we've already gone over my pessimism toward hardware bans. What I see when I look at NICS is a well-intentioned system with a lot of gaps that people want to believe don't exist, or are not a problem.

There's no reason why purchase records must be tied to background checks. We don't need a registry to find out where guns originate. Oftentimes the people facing decades behind bars are the first to admit where their contraband came from, ...more
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (3311), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 21, 18 8:40 PM
That's double talk, "There's no reason why purchase records must be tied to background checks. We don't need a registry to find out where guns originate. Oftentimes...."

Of course purchase records would then be tied to background checks, why else are you "legally" doing a background check?? I like the "oftentimes" as well, so it' ok to rely of criminals for our information, but not to abide by laws? Good gravy.
By Po Boy (1968), Water Mill on Mar 21, 18 8:47 PM
Could be buying one gun, ten guns, or could have changed your mind. Sales records exist as does security footage at most FFLs, I'd imagine, but we've had long talks about alternatives to FFLs.

Also, we rely on criminals for information all the time. See: the Mueller investigation.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (3311), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 21, 18 8:53 PM
When you get done weaving that web, let me know.

Alternatives to FFLs? Wrong guy.
By Po Boy (1968), Water Mill on Mar 21, 18 11:41 PM
Haven't we talked ad nauseum about private sales, or was that another poor soul?
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (3311), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 22, 18 12:00 AM
Alternatives to FFLs?
By Po Boy (1968), Water Mill on Mar 22, 18 11:50 AM
Yes, private sales are an alternative to stores that have federal firearms licences, I'm glad I could educate you.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (3311), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 22, 18 11:57 AM
Oooohhhh... in that case, stealing them is an alternative too. I too am glad to be able to educate, you.
By Po Boy (1968), Water Mill on Mar 22, 18 1:46 PM
You may be surprised to learn that one is a crime and the other is not, however.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (3311), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 22, 18 1:54 PM
Fore, they are both crimes if either the buyer or seller are aware of laws that would preclude someone from purchasing a firearm and do so anyway.
By dnice (2339), Hampton Bays on Mar 22, 18 2:05 PM
1 member liked this comment
That's false.

knowingly transferring a firearm to a prohibited person is a federal crime.

In some states, a private seller is not required to find out whether the buyer is a prohibited person.

In those jurisdictions, where the private seller does not know the buyer's prohibited status, the transfer is not a crime. Possession by a prohibited person is the crime, and it's perpetrated by the buyer.

The transfer creates no liability because it was legal.
Mar 23, 18 2:11 PM appended by Fore1gnBornHBgrown
It should also be noted that not "being aware of laws" is not a defense to breaking them.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (3311), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 22, 18 2:11 PM
And as we know, criminals don't follow the law, only the law abiding follow the law.

Fore has acknowledged dnice that he would require a background on someone, he just can't acknowledge that it is commonplace in the real world for the very reason no law abiding person wants to risk transferring a deadly weapon to someone they know nothing about - the same reasons Fore would site - there does come liability and no reasonable person wants to risk the well being of themselves and their family ...more
By Po Boy (1968), Water Mill on Mar 22, 18 2:23 PM
No, I'm correct.

There is zero liability where a seller follows the letter of the law in a state where the law doesn't require them to confirm the buyer is not a prohibited person.
Mar 22, 18 2:26 PM appended by Fore1gnBornHBgrown
I think it's great that it's commonplace. In fact, I think it should be more than commonplace.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (3311), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 22, 18 2:26 PM
It's called negligent entrustment. Each case is based on it's own merit.

The only problem with "more than commonplace" even with if great in theory and well intentions, is it would be flawed by design, unenforceable and would require gun registration, and that will NEVER fly.
By Po Boy (1968), Water Mill on Mar 22, 18 2:44 PM
That's civil liability. The transfer still confers no criminal liability, therefore the sale is legal.

As far as I can tell, negligent entrustment hasn't been used successfully to impart liability on a seller.

In fact, several courts have found that this type of liability is preempted by state laws protecting sellers of chattel from liability.
Mar 22, 18 2:52 PM appended by Fore1gnBornHBgrown
In fact, do you know of any single case where this theory has been used successfully to impart liability on a seller?
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (3311), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 22, 18 2:52 PM
That's liability, and as a seller, liability is always possible. The sale isn't legal if "either the buyer or seller are aware of laws that would preclude someone from purchasing a firearm and do so anyway" as dnice eloquently put it.

I have no idea why you'd think there was any reference to criminal liability of a legal sale by a seller. Reference has only been to legal sales, not violation of law that would make the sale illegal - two very distinct lines. Criminals don't follow the ...more
By Po Boy (1968), Water Mill on Mar 22, 18 6:56 PM
You're wrong, and cannot name a single case of negligent entrustment being applied successfully to firearm sales.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (3311), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 22, 18 7:48 PM
It's rather difficult to engage constructively and reasonably in discussion with someone who can't acknowledge that BOTH stealing a firearm and selling/purchasing by those who are aware of laws that would preclude purchasing a firearm, but do so anyway, are both illegal.

"That's false" tells me a sh*t ton more than I already knew.

But hey, I could be wrong.
By Po Boy (1968), Water Mill on Mar 22, 18 8:55 PM
1 member liked this comment
Wow Fore, that's more than several posts where you call someone out for being wrong on a subject that you have only researched for a brief time.

Funny how you glossed over my point that it is a crime to sell a firearm to a person on the prohibited list. You change the argument by stating that the seller is not required to find out while I was stating that is was illegal to "knowingly" do so.

Criminals gonna be criminals. I am all for enforcing current laws, especially when ...more
By dnice (2339), Hampton Bays on Mar 22, 18 8:56 PM
1 member liked this comment
Po: you can't point out a single instance of liability being applied to gun sales by negligent entrustment. You're full of it.

dnice: I didn't gloss over it, I merely pointed out how there exist jurisdictions where a private seller is not required to find out, and therefore can escape liability through plausible deniability.
Mar 22, 18 10:15 PM appended by Fore1gnBornHBgrown
Also, it should be noted that you're already living in a state with heavily restricted private sales. The idea is to bring the rest of the states up to speed with us.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (3311), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 22, 18 10:15 PM
What am I full of? I offered it for consideration of the potential liability possibilities that gun owners consider when selling a firearm and justification they use to minimize that risk. I don't need to point out an instance, those are the parameters YOU'VE set on the discussion. State law in some cases addresses the liability issue as well.

Mar 22, 18 10:58 PM appended by Po Boy
You just don't get that criminals will not follow the law, - bringing the rest of the states up to speed with us - is nonsense. You have yet to acknowledge that what you are proposing simple isn't feasible, which actually, makes you full of it.
By Po Boy (1968), Water Mill on Mar 22, 18 10:58 PM
You're full of nonsense after declaring that negligent entrustment casts liability on a private seller:

I contend that it doesn't, and has never imparted liability in a single case in any of the 50 states. I'm fairly sure because you piqued my interest and I looked.

But hey, I could be wrong, I just don't think I am.

So if there's no such thing as negligent entrustment in regard to firearms, what kind of liability exists in a state where the seller is not required to ...more
Mar 23, 18 6:05 AM appended by Fore1gnBornHBgrown
Has never imparted liability "in regard to a gun sale." Negligent entrustment is still a legal theory that can be applied to a person lending another a gun or other dangerous instrumentality, just not to sellers of chattels.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (3311), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 23, 18 6:05 AM
Fore, while you plant your flag of victory on a subjective topic with legal foundation but avoiding the primary message with bigger focus that a universal background check system is unenforceable and would fail without NATIONAL GUN REGISTRATION, I will continue to maintain that the private sales are largely self-policing and the concern of liability (negligent entrustment or otherwise) of selling a firearm is a motivation for many in conducting personally requiring it.

By Po Boy (1968), Water Mill on Mar 23, 18 12:08 PM
That negligent entrustment has never created liability for the seller in a gun sale is not subjective, it is objective fact.

I don't understand why you believe universal background checks require a federal registry, and I maintain that in some jurisdictions a private sale can be made to a prohibited person where the seller has plausible deniability of their prohibited status; there is zero concern of liability because the seller complied with the law.

In any event, it's enough ...more
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (3311), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 23, 18 12:26 PM
Bull, it's real world that each person decides FOR THEMSELVES. The FACT that it is being filed and tested in gun cases is clear evidence of the potential liability each gun owner may face.

I'm sure it is enough for you Fore to self proclaim you're right.
By Po Boy (1968), Water Mill on Mar 23, 18 1:08 PM
I can file whatever I want, until it's accepted it's an incorrect statement of the law.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (3311), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 23, 18 1:15 PM
While the lack of merits of a NATIONAL GUN REGISTRATION is avoided, I'll switch to current events that influence the mindset and actions of the law abiding gun owner to reduce liability.

Should Gun Owners Have To Buy Liability Insurance?
January 31, 2013·5:00 AM ET
Heard on Morning Edition by Caitlin Kenney








Caitlin Kenney
Mar 23, 18 1:25 PM appended by Po Boy
"I can file whatever I want, until it's accepted it's an incorrect statement of the law." Gun owners don't care, they just want to protect against liability at their discretion.
By Po Boy (1968), Water Mill on Mar 23, 18 1:25 PM
"Current events" don't take place in 2013.

You still haven't convinced me that universal background checks necessitate a federal registry.
Mar 23, 18 1:43 PM appended by Fore1gnBornHBgrown
Did you just say gun owners don't care about what the law is? In my experience, that's the exact opposite of reality.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (3311), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 23, 18 1:43 PM
Universal background checks are unenforceable without National Registry... you're not listening. More on the litigious environment that influences the mindset of law abiding gun owners.

Sandy Hook gun lawsuit gets its day in Connecticut Supreme Court
By Ellie Kaufman, CNN. November 14, 2017
By Po Boy (1968), Water Mill on Mar 23, 18 1:48 PM
The idea is not to proactively enforce universal background checks, but to impart liability where a firearm is not properly transferred.
Mar 23, 18 1:52 PM appended by Fore1gnBornHBgrown
Now you'll claim liability already exists, then that even if it doesn't gun owners are already super careful, and even if they're not, there's no way to enforce universal background checks without a gun registry. Round and round it goes.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (3311), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 23, 18 1:52 PM
Ohhh, liability...The idea while rich in intent, is flawed by design no matter how you enforce it. You see, to begin it, you need to know where ALL the firearms are, to enforce it at any level.

You've forgotten our previous discussion about "guess how many firearm just got lost or stolen?" and other posters who noted that gee, their firearm all just got lost in a boating accident.
By Po Boy (1968), Water Mill on Mar 23, 18 2:09 PM
No, you don't. We'd trace the origin after the crime, just as we do now.

The only difference is that, where a transfer occurred without a background check, there would be criminal liability where there is currently none.

Also, and I only recently learned about this so correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't gun-owners required by to report a lost firearm to the ATF within 48 hours?

I guess a person could simply not know their firearm has been stolen for months or years, but ...more
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (3311), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 23, 18 2:38 PM
HARRUMPH! HARRUMPH!

Senate Intel releases election security recommendations
By MARY BRUCE TRISH TURNER
Mar 20, 2018, 4:58 PM ET
By Mr. Z (10235), North Sea on Mar 21, 18 8:04 PM
Lord, I pray you provide Z with the wisdom to post on topic.
By Po Boy (1968), Water Mill on Mar 21, 18 8:13 PM
1 member liked this comment
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By bigfresh (3567), north sea on Mar 21, 18 8:54 PM
Why are they coming from Georgia, lax laws. Why isn't OUR congress going after these states? It is easy to mess with honest citizens.
Why are illegals getting drivers licenses from certain states and the government not going after the state.
Go after the ILLEGAL states and stop the BS...
By knitter (1303), Southampton on Mar 22, 18 9:09 AM
"Why isn't OUR congress going after these states?"

Because there's no appetite at the federal level for a standard mandated set of gun laws across all 50 sates.

"Why are illegals getting drivers licenses from certain states"

Because they are not in deportation proceedings and need to be able to get around until they are.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (3311), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 22, 18 2:24 PM
Ever turn on the tube and see the violence abroad, and the weapon of choice? Even the kids are carrying AK’s. What would YOU do if someone approached you with an AK? Run, hide, call the cops? Those bump stocks might come in handy at a time like this. Oh wait, that would never happen here.
By pigroast (64), East Quogue on Mar 22, 18 5:11 PM
News 12 is reporting these events as protests for gun control and against school violence.
By Duckbornandraised (178), Eastport on Mar 23, 18 6:55 AM
Some people should be kept away from all guns, and some guns should be kept away from all people. It’s that simple.
By Turkey Bridge (1847), Quiogue on Mar 23, 18 10:45 AM
Yes, but WHICH people, WHO gets to decide, and WHAT do we do with them instead are the not-so-simple parts.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (3311), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 23, 18 10:53 AM
Pray for the deceased and wounded, pray for cooler heads, both here and government..
By knitter (1303), Southampton on Mar 23, 18 10:49 AM
Not the worst thing in the world to be denied use of a gun. Sixty five percent of this country goes through their days without having a gun. Time to get guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and those convicted of aggression against others.
By Mets fan (1154), Southampton on Mar 23, 18 11:02 AM
I don't agree with you.
By pigroast (64), East Quogue on Mar 23, 18 11:18 AM
Which part in particular don't you agree with, PR?

I understand some people believe they should have the right to transfer firearms without government oversight such a background checks or sales records, but if that's your belief I wish you'd lay it out for us.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (3311), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 23, 18 11:25 AM
That's going to be a tough one MF since anyone who still supports Trump is certifiably insane and many of his supporters are gun "nuts".
By johnj (834), Westhampton on Mar 23, 18 11:37 AM
I think what Mf is saying is, we should enforce current law - getting guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and felons - both current law. I agree Mf!
By Po Boy (1968), Water Mill on Mar 23, 18 11:57 AM
1 member liked this comment
While we wait for Mets Fan to get back to us, let's see what he's said in the past: "Rigorous background checks with making the process as difficult as possible is only sensible."

Do you still see eye-to-eye on the MF, Po?
Mar 23, 18 12:37 PM appended by Fore1gnBornHBgrown
"Eye-to-eye on the topic with MF"
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (3311), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 23, 18 12:37 PM
Terminology like "rigorous" and "difficult" are short on specifics and tend to be long on ideology, which usually means, short on sensible. I'll have to refrain from opinion as a result.
By Po Boy (1968), Water Mill on Mar 23, 18 1:05 PM
Lacking context, you'd be right, but surely "as difficult as possible" implies more difficult than the status quo, wouldn't you agree?
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (3311), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 23, 18 1:09 PM
Lacking context is good enough for me.
By Po Boy (1968), Water Mill on Mar 23, 18 1:12 PM
Ignorance is bliss!
Mar 23, 18 1:16 PM appended by Fore1gnBornHBgrown
I probably don't need to explain to anyone but Po that this wasn't directed at Mets.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (3311), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 23, 18 1:16 PM
That's no way to speak of Mets fan, but who am I to argue.
Mar 23, 18 1:19 PM appended by Po Boy
I probably don't need to explain to anyone but Fore that this wasn't directed at Mets.
By Po Boy (1968), Water Mill on Mar 23, 18 1:19 PM
1 member liked this comment

"Not the worst thing in the world to be denied use of a gun. "

Unless you need to defend yourself.

"Time to get guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and those convicted of aggression against others."

I completely agree.
By dnice (2339), Hampton Bays on Mar 23, 18 2:31 PM
1 member liked this comment
On the second point, provided we guarantee due process prior to stripping gun rights, agreed.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (3311), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 23, 18 2:39 PM
1 member liked this comment
The event is being put together by NeverAgain, a group of survivors of the Stoneman Douglas shooting,who have been working tirelessly to make sure the national outrage in the wake of last month’s shooting translates to real action. But they are not mobilizing alone. According to their website, “March For Our Lives is created by, inspired by, and led by students across the country who will no longer risk their lives waiting for someone else to take action to stop the epidemic of mass ...more
By pigroast (64), East Quogue on Mar 23, 18 11:16 AM
Yes pigroast, they have been working tirelessly with money from Soros, Clooney, Oprah, etc. Manipulated is probably a better word.
By dnice (2339), Hampton Bays on Mar 23, 18 6:44 PM
Sounds like they have enough sense to put their money where it can help. On one side you have the NRA, why don’t you comment who funds them? Both groups are law abiding, just with different views.
By Fred s (360), Southampton on Mar 23, 18 6:57 PM
They have enough money to think they know better than anyone else and also to not have to worry about arming themselves for their own secuity. The NRA is funded by people, like myself, that want their constitutionally protected rights protected.
By dnice (2339), Hampton Bays on Mar 23, 18 7:06 PM
@ dnice: Celebrities don't buy politicians like the NRA does. (And with YOUR money.)
Your constant mention of having to defend yourself begs some questions: Are there people in your life that you fear? Is there something in your past that you worry deserves or will bring revenge? What is it about living in a bucolic seaside town that has you so fearful?
By June Bug (2105), SOUTHAMPTON on Mar 23, 18 8:06 PM
JB, I really don't have the inclination to try to explain personal security or accountability to you.
By dnice (2339), Hampton Bays on Mar 23, 18 8:50 PM
@dnice: Your prerogative, of course.
78% of Americans do not own a gun, so unless you're a hunter, we can only conclude you live in a state of insecurity and discomfort which is lamentable.
By June Bug (2105), SOUTHAMPTON on Mar 24, 18 11:27 AM
What, sorry JB, I couldn't hear you from my safe room.
By dnice (2339), Hampton Bays on Mar 24, 18 9:43 PM
Do you think all those kids that are marching are from another planet or another country? Do you think the women involved are foreigners? These are American citizens , like you. We are all in this together, whether you like it or not.
Do you think the NRA gets all its money from just people, like you? Or are there gun companies and other wealthy donors that donate to them? If the NRA was just people like you, I’d agree. But it gets money from wealthy people as well as big companies. ...more
By Fred s (360), Southampton on Mar 23, 18 7:26 PM
Pedestrian indeed.
By dnice (2339), Hampton Bays on Mar 23, 18 8:54 PM
Fred s. Thank you for your pedestrian observation and analysis.
By Duckbornandraised (178), Eastport on Mar 23, 18 8:48 PM
Look how easy it is for them to get the entire general public into an uproar. Over four times as many people die from opioids as guns annually. Why is no one marching to get pills off the streets? We are all being manipulated and preyed upon to give up our gun rights. Has to be a reason they don’t want us armed. If you believe all the theatre on the dumb box (tv) you are part of the problem. We need critical thinkers to step up and give some insight. All tv, radio and news outlets are ...more
By icecreamman (363), Southampton on Mar 24, 18 7:23 AM
One day at time icecream man...today it's gun violence tomorrow opioid distribution. Blaming the media for things you don't like seeing is naive.

By adlkjd923ilifmac.aladfksdurwp (524), southampton on Mar 24, 18 7:49 AM
1 member liked this comment
There's also an element of self-harm with opioids, whereas no one body decides to get killed my a mass murderer.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (3311), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 24, 18 8:12 AM
@ icecreamman

Quote

"Do your ... research"
-----------------------------

Terrific advice, icecreamman. Follow it - - - and report back with the objective evidence that supports your paranoid, conspiratorialist beliefs. Try actually being one of those "critical 'thinkers'" whom you say we need.

The rest of us are looking forward today to the students' march nationwide. This will be one of the few times that we can listen to young people, en masse, speaking ...more
By highhatsize (3603), East Quogue on Mar 24, 18 8:37 AM
Is that the best you can do? Throw out a couple of insults and hope the person takes the bait? How much are they paying you to troll anybody with a difference of opinion? Roughly 65,000 died from opioids versus 15,000 gun deaths in 2016. And yes foreign you make a good point, but. Did you know growing opium was forbidden in Afghanistan before we got there? Now it seems the pipeline is a flowin, what a coincidence.
By icecreamman (363), Southampton on Mar 24, 18 9:04 AM
1 member liked this comment
Control burn ALL Afghan opium poppy fields NOW !!!!!!
By pw herman (1010), southampton on Mar 24, 18 9:24 AM
Drugs are indeed big business with lots of hands in the pot. I don't believe that another war on drugs will change that.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (3311), HAMPTON BAYS on Mar 24, 18 9:46 AM
After getting let down by every adult I can think of from the sheriff to the FBI to the school board to the administration to that wus with the gun stationed at the school to the parents, the adoptive parents and everyone in between.

the adults with guns want to tell these kids who are being used for target practice that they can't express themselves. sound fair to you?
By even flow (702), East Hampton on Mar 26, 18 7:48 AM
Pw Herman to the rescue.you had the same idea as your esteemed leader Bill O’Reilly. He said we should carpet bomb the poppy fields. Brilliant minds think alike.
By Fred s (360), Southampton on Mar 24, 18 11:14 AM
@icecreamman:

....." All tv, radio and news outlets are all owned by Bain capital, they control the agenda.".....

Can you be any more off base with such a false statement?


By June Bug (2105), SOUTHAMPTON on Mar 24, 18 11:54 AM
I shouldn’t give Mitt’s Company all the credit. Throw in Comcast, Disney, National Amusements, Time Warner, News Corp and Sony. These very few companies own over 90% of the channels on the dumb box pumping the agenda to the masses. These kids are not being educated about gun control, they are being trained to support the agenda. The irony is none of them are of legal age to vote.
By icecreamman (363), Southampton on Mar 25, 18 9:08 AM
Well there is the government controlled media , PBS comes to mind.
By bigfresh (3567), north sea on Mar 25, 18 8:31 AM
Let's review.

Kids who are getting shot at, protested.
Adults who are doing teh shooting were not happy about it.

Kids in school, Adults still have their guns.

All that hysteria for naught.
By even flow (702), East Hampton on Mar 26, 18 7:38 AM