A response from Tom Coburn, US Senate
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: A response from Tom Coburn, US Senate

  1. #1

    A response from Tom Coburn, US Senate

    A response from Tom Coburn, US Senate to my phone call on background checks and my response to his letter.

    Thank you for taking the time to write me to express your opinion and concerns about the various gun control proposals. I am encouraged so many Oklahomans are making their voices heard. I have received an overwhelming number of letters, and in order to respond in a timely manner, I am writing a response that encompasses my entire position. If you have additional questions or concerns, please write me again.
    I want to be clear: I remain committed to defending and protecting our Constitution; namely the Second Amendment. I have long protected the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns. I am opposed to a ban on assault rifles and I oppose limiting magazines. 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.
    The news reports are correct that I have been involved in discussions to write legislation improving the existing background checks to enable private citizens to check a database and ensure the person they seek to sell their gun to is legally allowed to own a firearm. I believe it is good public policy to make sure that those who are mentally-ill or a felon (both are already prohibited from owning a gun), do not have access to a weapon. However, I oppose record keeping and will not agree to legislation that expands record keeping to private sales.
    The concern I am hearing over and over is not just about people maintaining their right to own firearms—it is a concern about how to preserve liberty. When our Constitution was adopted, we had just won a war fought largely by Minute Men and localized, or unofficial, militias (Sons of Liberty, etc). The first shots fired at Concord were, in part, to preserve a local supply of firearms that the British sought to confiscate. Our founders believed very strongly that the individual right to bear arms would preserve the independence and freedom won in 1781, just as they had enabled our founders to win the revolutionary war. They feared tyranny and centralized power—which is why our Constitution was established. In addition to the checks created by balancing power between a legislature and executive—and checked by a judiciary—the Bill of Rights sought to limit the federal government and clearly stated that those powers not enumerated in the Constitution and delegated to the federal government would remain with the states and the people (the 9th and 10th Amendments).
    Yet, our federal government regularly legislates on matters that belong to the states and the people. Our freedoms are being gradually encroached and choked by ever-increasing regulations, laws, agencies, and overspending. This concerns me greatly and I fight daily to rein in the size, scope and spending of our federal government. I believe the greatest threat to our Republic is apathy as our overindulgent federal government, through indebtedness, spends the money of future generations. James Madison, the architect of our Constitution, said something similar in 1788 in a speech in Virginia when he said, “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
    I am aware of this and I work to push back on all attacks to our Constitution, including those to our Second Amendment. Congress must be careful not to legislate in a way that makes criminals out of law-abiding, gun-owning citizens.
    Thank you for being involved and allowing me these last eight years to fight to protect our Constitution. I daily think about the sacrifices of past generations and I am grateful. In these last four years, as I finish out my second term, I remain committed to protecting your Second Amendment rights and working to limit our federal government and reduce federal spending.

    Sincerely,
    Tom A. Coburn, M.D.
    United States Senator

    As a constitutional scholar, I assume that you know that the text of the second amendment states in clear English that " the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." In my view, the government has no business keeping track of who has firearms and who doesn't. The less the government knows about the people, the better off the people are. The founders were men who won a close victory in a war over their own government. They didn't trust government at all and they were wise to limit the power of the central government.Do not allow the monster that is government to have a longer leash. Even the supporters of expanded background checks admit that they are only "symbolic." As a member of a family that has veterans of the U.S. military going back to the revolutionary war, and as a veteran of the US Navy myself, I ask you to support the people, not the government and support a denial of expanded background checks.
    A longtime supporter,
    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.

  2.   
  3. #2
    Thanks, fudo, you've cleared up something about Tom Coburn for me. Some friends of mine who live in Lawton think he helped to hang the moon... and I wondered how anyone who was supposedly that great, could back the background check crap. Now I can understand his mindset - good intentioned, but still wrong. :)
    Blessings,
    Al
    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#

  4. #3
    Wait... the letter said he would filibuster... but other posts here today say he voted to take it to the floor. Is it too late to filibuster or did he lie in his letter?

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

  5. #4
    @ Warbirds: Both sides of his mouth at once? This is a quote from his letter to fudo:

    Tom Coburn: —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.
    The news reports are correct that I have been involved in discussions to write legislation improving the existing background checks to enable private citizens to check a database and ensure the person they seek to sell their gun to is legally allowed to own a firearm. End quote.

    Is this what you meant? I don't think he understands that requiring one to pay for a background check is infringing on their rights as enumerated in the 2A.
    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. If I have to pay (and they have no problem with that) to exercise my second amendment right, then why do they have a problem with someone paying for an ID (and having to show it) to vote. How can we make sure that a felon that has lost his/her right to vote or anyone else that has lost that right is not voting? Isn't that common sense?

  7. A response from Tom Coburn, US Senate

    It also sounds as though he thinks that the states are who should dictate what gun laws should be when he cited the 9th and 10th. Amendment. Wrong again Tom!

  8. #7
    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...........
    Time to add FireMarshall Bill to the block list.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by Warbirds View Post
    (null)
    Not too fluent in all the terminology, but depending on how conservative the state is, sounds to me like he's trying to make them either vote to be reelected (the way he wants to vote), or vote against what he believes and make it known to the people to get them out of office on the next election. But to me, considering we have most of their 2 year term left to go, that's a risky sell. Glad it ain't my state playing these games...

    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.

  10. #9
    [QUOTE=Warbirds;427616]Wait... the letter said he would filibuster... but other posts here today say he voted to take it to the floor. Is it too late to filibuster or did he lie in his letter?/QUOTE]

    There will be additional opportunities for filibuster. This vote was to open debate. Still, it would have been good to see it blocked here. Some suspect that there were good reasons they let debate go forward. I fear they are not that smart.
    Si vis pacem para bellum

  11. #10
    JSDinTexas Guest
    Do you really believe any politician is representing you above their own aggrandizement?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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