Angus King

I'm just afraid the refugee crisis we're seeing now is a precursor to a much more serious one caused by those regions essentially becoming uninhabitable.

I think that may be what we're talking about here, is, if you have a structure that is overly bureaucratic and rigid, the policy will be slow, cumbersome, and itself not responsive to immediate problems.

But, by writing them in and requiring that they be established, isn't that almost a contradiction in terms?

I'm very supportive of this concept, as a general principle.

I think this is a very important issue, and I know you recognize we are inadvertently making the problem worse by not providing sufficient funds for the management of these lands.

I thank the Senator. I thank him for his answers and thank him for his leadership on this issue.

One of the odd things about this debate is that if this had been 15 years ago, I don't think we would even be having this debate. Background checks were generally uncontroversial. If we had would have had the terrorist threat, I couldn't…

But my understanding is the amendment as proposed does provide a specific process whereby a person who believes they are wrongfully on the list, wrongfully denied the opportunity to purchase a firearm, has the opportunity to contest that…

If you are for the Second Amendment, there are no limitations whatsoever, and if you talk about limitations, you are against the Second Amendment. Do you accept that characterization?

Don't you think one of the problems with this debate as it has evolved over the past few years is that it has become a kind of either/or?

By the way, I would mention that since the Senator has been on the floor today, 10 people have been murdered with guns. It is about one an hour. Since the Orlando shooting, 100 people--twice as many as in Orlando--have been murdered with…

And I find it hard to believe that if we were debating that law in 1993 under the current circumstances, that some cognizance wouldn't have been taken of the risk of domestic terrorists.

But if someone says: Well, if that is such a small number, why are we bothering? Because it only takes one to kill a number of people.

It will have no practical effect. They will still be able to buy guns in either place. They would have to go through the instant background check and the law as if they were a felon or something like that. Then they would be prevented. But…

I say to the Senator, I have a series of questions and some comments. First, I come from a predominantly rural State with a very high number of gun owners, a very low rate of gun crime. What you are talking about here today, adding the…

I hope you will convey back to the Administration the importance that this committee puts on that position and that we believe an appointment in the immediate future is appropriate.

We would like to get this taken care of in this session of Congress.

We do not want that to the exception to eat up the rule.

I do not want the Swiss to eat the cheese.

My bill is S. 3027, and it involves Acadia National Park in Maine.

I believe the bravest person in the United States was that 16-year-old boy who walked down into that hole about 100 years ago and discovered it.

But one of the problems is we are all trying to predict the future and the only thing we can say with certainty, that we will be wrong.

The real question is who bears the risk?

If the private sector is not willing to, does that tell you something about it?

Thank you, Madam Chair.