A response from Tom Coburn, US Senate - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: A response from Tom Coburn, US Senate

  1. #11
    The dark is probably right. If there are additional times to filibuster then what he is doing matches his letter. It would be nice to get the dems on record then filibuster.

    Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
    Time to add FireMarshall Bill to the block list.

  2.   
  3. #12
    I spoke to DR Coburn's office at length this morning. It was more of urinating down my back, and trying to convince me it's raining.
    War to the Knife, Knife to the hilt.
    If we don't want to live in a trashy area, we all have to be willing to help pick up the trash.

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe Area, New Mexico
    Posts
    3,487
    I spoke to Richard Burr's office in DC this morning to demand my Senator support and defend the Second Amendment as we have previously corresponded about,. I also tore in the poor girl that answered the phone as why he did not support Senator Paul’s RIGHT to filibuster. This should not have ever left committee. She explained that Senator Burr wants this bill to hit the full Senate floor for full discussion concerning ALL the ramifications of proposed legislation but to also bring to the forefront the "Mental Illness" angle and address this as well. I told her I did not except that explanation of trying to address the illness angle. As trying to pass legislation on all of people’s behavior has ever worked in the past. Gee, kind of like going after the booze companies for all the DUI deaths in this country. The LIB's got away with it on tobacco companies, they're just inching ever closer to any ills that seem to fit their mold.
    Her best suggestion was to post on the Senator’s Facebook. Yea gee golly Wally, like that's not traceable.
    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." --author and philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

  5. #14
    Mappow, they already know everything about you, and me, and nearly every poster on this forum. Traceable or not. They've already got us pegged. The majority of us are being called terrorists, because we're veterans. The others are being called terrorists because they are pro-2A.
    I wonder if the lemmings even monitor their own facebook pages. Have you ever talked with him at any of his offices? Just curious.
    Dang! I'm becoming cynical over everything. I gotta go get another bottle -- of water. :o)
    Stop, Drop, and Roll won't work in Hell.
    The truth about the former Republic of the United States of America:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6Ioz...ayer_embedded#

  6. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by AndeyHall View Post
    (Snip)
    But I wasn't a huge fan of how he incinerated that the states have the right over the feds to govern the laws of guns. That is a complete fallacy and I don't see how they get away with making stricter laws than the federal gov't.
    Not really a fallacy, Andey.
    According to the Constitution, the States are above the feds. If the Constitution doesn't say something is particularly the fed's responsibility, that particular something is left up to the States or to The People. That is the rule of law.
    The 2A precludes the infringement on the people's right to bear arms. Therefore the States are the ones to do it, if it is done at all. At least at the State level, The People are more apt to have a little bit more control over what the "government" gets into. Then when that goes bad, is where the 2A kicks in. JMHO.
    Stop, Drop, and Roll won't work in Hell.
    The truth about the former Republic of the United States of America:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6Ioz...ayer_embedded#

  7. Quote Originally Posted by UATKP View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AndeyHall View Post
    (Snip)
    But I wasn't a huge fan of how he incinerated that the states have the right over the feds to govern the laws of guns. That is a complete fallacy and I don't see how they get away with making stricter laws than the federal gov't.
    Not really a fallacy, Andey.
    According to the Constitution, the States are above the feds. If the Constitution doesn't say something is particularly the fed's responsibility, that particular something is left up to the States or to The People. That is the rule of law.
    The 2A precludes the infringement on the people's right to bear arms. Therefore the States are the ones to do it, if it is done at all. At least at the State level, The People are more apt to have a little bit more control over what the "government" gets into. Then when that goes bad, is where the 2A kicks in. JMHO.
    I understand that, but under the Reconstruction Amendments, the 14th amendment makes the Bill of Rights apply to the states. Therefore under the 14th amendment the states cannot pass any law that contradicts amendments 1-10.

    The reason states rights were expressed in the constitution was to keep the federal government from becoming too powerful and oppressive over the states. However the Bill of Rights are not laws in the government's favor, they are in our favor. Therefore the point of the 14th amendment was to ensure that even though the states have the right to govern themselves, they are not allowed to strip their citizens of their rights under the Bill of Rights.

  8. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Elma NY
    Posts
    1,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Warbirds View Post
    OK... here is the important part of his response....
    .
    I will not vote for any bill that limits the gun rights of law abiding citizens. While I support a debate in the Senate on gun related issues—including reaffirming these rights and forcing gun-control advocates to have their votes on record and be held accountable for their votes—I will not only support, but lead a filibuster to prevent the passage of any bill that limits the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.
    .
    .
    .
    So he voted to let the bill go to the floor for debate, and wants to force the gun control idiots to be forced to vote. But then he says he will filibuster the bill passage. How is that all possible? Is it still possible to filibuster? Come on law scholars, explain...........
    Sen. Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican who was part of the negotiations with Mr. Toomey before dropping out of the talks, said the record-keeping provisions in the deal are too onerous and amount to a “new tax on guns.”

    “Instead of rerouting all commerce through federally designated persons that will charge a $30 to $50 and up to a $125 fee, creating a new de facto tax on guns, my plan would allow a consumer-friendly website or concealed carry permits to be used for verification, allowing law abiding gun owners the freedom to easily and safely transfer firearms,” he said in a letter to Senate colleagues.
    Tolerance of the intolerant leads to the destruction of tolerance. “You are also reminded that any inappropriate remarks or jokes concerning security may result in your arrest,” in the land of the free.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast