Coburn getting ready to sell us out..!

[abajaj11]

NICS is not a license. Also with rights become responsibilities. How would a background check on any sale other than to family be that much different than the same background check every time you purchase from a FFL?

Will it solve all gun violence problems? No. The only way to solve that would be if every single gun and piece of gun manufacturing machinery vaporized at the exact same time.

Yes....gun violence would then be replaced by other forms of violence...much worse in many ways and directed towards weaker and older people and women.
Guns are the great equalizer.
As they said in the 1800's: God made people, but Col. Colt made them equal....

 

[LeverGunLover]

Hello all.

I'm new on this forum (but I've been on marlinowners.com for a while now, under the same user name... actually since before Marlin Firearms let the site go, but wanted to get local with my fellow Oklahoman's- which is as it should be)

This Coburn thing is nothing short of ABSURD

When he originally ran, I recall him pledging that he wasn't going to make a career out of the political arena - but like all the rest of them, he did just the opposite of what he first said!

During the last election I did my best to help him keep his original promise, but I did support him when he first ran.

CALLS WILL BE MADE and LETTERS WILL BE SENT (for what it's worth).

I wouldn't have thought that in Oklahoma we would have a rep that would "give an inch"... but live and learn.

 

[tulsamal]

When he originally ran, I recall him pledging that he wasn't going to make a career out of the political arena - but like all the rest of them, he did just the opposite of what he first said!

I don't get this at all. He was an MD before he ran for Representative. When he won, he pledged to serve a maximum of three terms. Six years. While serving, he continued to be an MD, going back home to deliver babies of old family friends on occasion. Despite efforts to stop him since other legislators didn't like the way that he acted like he had a life and career outside of politics.

Then his final term expired and he went home. Back to delivering babies and being a doctor. Time went by. An Oklahoma Senate seat opened up. People begged him to run. Not the State GOP people though, they wanted the former OKC mayor to win. At first Coburn didn't want to run but he was gradually convinced that the alternatives were worse for Oklahoma. So he entered the primary and defeated the candidate of the state organization. The preferred candidate of the national GOP as well since they knew they couldn't control Coburn's votes.

He won by a large majority. He agreed to serve a maximum of two Senate terms. 12 years. He is on his second term right now and he has already said he won't be running for reelection. Even though he is so popular in the state that he could run every six years right up to his death and win every time. But he likes living in OK and being a doctor. The Senate tried VERY hard to make him stop practicing while he was a Senator. Somehow against the rules to actually make money outside of the Senate. I can understand that if it means going around making $50,000 speeches or serving on corporate boards. But ridiculous when somebody is a professional like a doctor with a practice that predates his election.

In any case, he has sacrificed a lot of family and "home time" by serving us. For 6 plus 12 years. That is a LONG way from the 30-40 years that many career politicians sit in one seat.

I actually wish he would come home, rest for a couple of years, then run for Governor. We would be very lucky to have him in that role. But I suspect he really is going to go back to full time doctor and nothing else.

Gregg

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Here is my letter to Tom Coburn regarding ...This from the Washington Post

Senator Coburn:

With all due respect to the office you hold, I must ask if you are nuts. Are you nuts?

You were sent to Congress by the people of Oklahoma, among other reasons, to protect our inalienable rights; specifically, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Going along with anti-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms legislators to call for background checks on every arms sale is antithetical to liberty with its direct infringement upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

In the first place, the attempt to keep arms out of the hands of proven violent criminals is an abject failure. Calling for additional background checks will not reduce crime just like the current background checks do not reduce crime. Arms are not kept out of the hands of violent criminals with laws.

I've heard too much common sense come out of your mouth to know you know the following common sense: Only keeping violent criminals who have not been executed locked up, or institutionalized, or under full-time guardianship will keep violent felons from committing violent crime - regardless of the instrumentality.

The mere existence of the word "recidivism" is all the proof one needs to know that no law can keep arms out of the hands of violent criminals. All one can do is to physically keep the hands of the violent criminals away from arms.

If you wish to support the Second Amendment, propose legislation to remove the Feral(Federal) Government from its unconstitutional infringement upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Securing violent criminals away from arms - or any other instrumentality able to be misused violently - is the responsibility of the several states and law exists in each state to accomplish that, needing only minor modification to extend sentencing terms to assure no adjudicated violent criminal is ever released until it can be proven, on an individual basis, that each violent criminal will no longer commit or threaten to commit violent crime.

Your current position on any proposed or existing background checks on all free people who wish to procure arms demonstrates you have no regard for the Second Amendment, and brings into question your stance on any and all the rights of free people.

Before I learned of your stance on these background checks, I thought you were a glass of clean water sitting next to all those glasses full of dirty water populating the halls of Congress. Now that you've allowed that one drop of dirty water into your glass, well, how can your glass of water be considered clean?

You are a disappointment to me and have dropped the ball We the People of Oklahoma so trustingly handed you when we voted for you to represent our conservative Oklahoma and Godly values.

I wrote this letter not merely to admonish and berate you. I wrote this letter to inform you that you still have the opportunity to redeem yourself by taking the opportunity to protect our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Consider the oath you took to uphold the Constitution for the United States of America and honor yourself by honoring that oath.

As the Court said in Boyd v. United States: "It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon." The same should apply to legislation.

Sincerely,

Woody

 

[LeverGunLover]

I don't get this at all. He was an MD before he ran for Representative. When he won, he pledged to serve a maximum of three terms. Six years. While serving, he continued to be an MD, going back home to deliver babies of old family friends on occasion. Despite efforts to stop him since other legislators didn't like the way that he acted like he had a life and career outside of politics.

Then his final term expired and he went home. Back to delivering babies and being a doctor. Time went by. An Oklahoma Senate seat opened up. People begged him to run. Not the State GOP people though, they wanted the former OKC mayor to win. At first Coburn didn't want to run but he was gradually convinced that the alternatives were worse for Oklahoma. So he entered the primary and defeated the candidate of the state organization. The preferred candidate of the national GOP as well since they knew they couldn't control Coburn's votes.

He won by a large majority. He agreed to serve a maximum of two Senate terms. 12 years. He is on his second term right now and he has already said he won't be running for reelection. Even though he is so popular in the state that he could run every six years right up to his death and win every time. But he likes living in OK and being a doctor. The Senate tried VERY hard to make him stop practicing while he was a Senator. Somehow against the rules to actually make money outside of the Senate. I can understand that if it means going around making $50,000 speeches or serving on corporate boards. But ridiculous when somebody is a professional like a doctor with a practice that predates his election.

In any case, he has sacrificed a lot of family and "home time" by serving us. For 6 plus 12 years. That is a LONG way from the 30-40 years that many career politicians sit in one seat.

I actually wish he would come home, rest for a couple of years, then run for Governor. We would be very lucky to have him in that role. But I suspect he really is going to go back to full time doctor and nothing else.

Gregg

Like I said - I have voted for him previously (let me add... in every election but the last one).

I realize he has given a lot of himself, and has stood for, and achieved a VAST MAJORITY of great things that we all appreciate and could only hope that more of our politicians would do.

That said, the more time spent in Washington (by ANYONE) the more "in the system" all men will become in twined. While there a some positive aspects to this, there are also many negatives as well.

In the spirit of our founders, all reps should be "revolving door" civil servants - in, out and back home.

Home to rest, then back to Washington is certainly better than most will ever do, but we need to return to a constant revolving door of new Reps and Senators. This will ensure that strong alliances are not formed (with anyone) and those that represent the people do exactly that - without any regards to a advancing their political career.

I apply this principal of service across the board (not just to Coburn) but to ALL Senators and Reps. Just as the founders intended.

As for Coburn's principals - I agree with them 96 percent of the time.

What I would hope is that there are many others out there waiting to take his place who would continue in his tradition, with the same principals and convictions.

 

[JM44-40]

Found this on another forum under a thread called "What Gunowners Face." It really explains what they're after with the Universal Background Check. I posted it in another thread but I think it's important. It's long and it will pi** you off but it shows the other side is in it for the long haul -- and they aren't going away. No "quarter" should be allowed on the background check.

porksFollowRSS
Daily Kos member
ProfileDiaries (list)Stream
FRI DEC 21, 2012 AT 03:20 AM PST
How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process
bysporksFollow
138 Comments / 138 New
It's nice that we're finally talking about gun control. It's very sad that it took such a terrible tragedy to talk about it, but I'm glad the conversation is happening. I hear a lot about assault weapon and large magazine bans, and whilst I'm supportive of that, it won't solve the problem. The vast majority of firearm deaths occur with handguns. Only about 5% of people killed by guns are killed by guns which would be banned in any foreseeable AWB.

Furthermore, there seems to be no talk about high powered rifles. What gun nuts don't want you to know is many target and hunting rifles are chambered in the same round (.223/5.56mm) that Lanza's assault weapon was. Even more guns are chambered for more powerful rounds, like the .30-06 or (my personal "favorite") 7.62x54R. Even a .22, the smallest round manufactured on a large scale, can kill easily. In fact, some say the .22 kills more people than any other round out there.

Again, I like that we're talking about assault weapons, machine guns, and high capacity clips. But it only takes one bullet out of one gun to kill a person. Remember the beltway sniper back in 2002? The one who killed a dozen odd people? Even though he used a bushmaster assault rifle, he only fired one round at a time before moving. He could have used literally any rifle sold in the US for his attacks.

The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.

Unfortunately, right now we can't. The political will is there, but the institutions are not. Honestly, this is a good thing. If we passed a law tomorrow banning all firearms, we would have massive noncompliance. What we need to do is establish the regulatory and informational institutions first. This is how we do it:

The very first thing we need is national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them. Canada has a national firearms registry. We need to copy their model. We need a law demanding all firearms be registered to a national database. We need to know who has them and where they are. We need to make this as easy as possible for gun owners. The federal government provides the money and technical expertise, and the State police carry it out. Like a funded mandate. Most firearms already have a serial number on them, so it would really be a matter of taking the information already on the ATF form 4473 and putting it in a national database. I think about 6 months should be enough time.

Along with this, make private sales illegal. When a firearm is transferred, make it law that the registration must be updated. Again, make it super easy to do. Perhaps over, the internet. Dealers can log in by their FFLs and update the registration. Additionally, new guns are to be registered by the manufacturer. The object here is to create a clear paper trail from factory to distributor to dealer to owner. We want to encourage as much voluntary compliance as possible.

Now we get down to it. The registration period has passed. Now we have criminals without registered guns running around. Probably kooky types that "lost" them on a boat or something. So remember those ATF form 4473s? Those record every firearm sale, going back twenty years. And those have to be surrendered to the ATF on demand. So, we get those logbooks, and cross reference the names and addresses with the new national registry. Since most NRA types own two or (many) more guns, we can get an idea of who properly registered their guns and who didn't. For example, if we have a guy who purchased 6 guns over the course of 10 years, but only registered two of them, that raises a red flag.

Now, maybe he sold them or they got lost or something. But it gives us a good target for investigation. A nice visit by the ATF or state police to find out if he really does still have those guns would be certainly warranted. It's certainly not perfect. People may have gotten guns from parents or family, and not registered them. Perfect is the enemy of pretty darn good, as they say. This exercise isn't so much to track down every gun ever sold; the main idea would be to profile and investigate people that may not have registered their guns. As an example, I'm not so concerned with the guy who bought that bolt action Mauser a decade ago and doesn't have anything registered to his name. It's a pretty good possibility that he sold it, gave it away, or got rid of it somehow. And even if he didn't, that guy is not who I'm concerned with. I'm concerned that other guy who bought a half dozen assault weapons, registered two hunting rifles, and belongs to the NRA/GOA. He's the guy who warrants a raid.

So registration is the first step. Now that the vast majority are registered, we can do what we will. One good first step would be to close the registry to new registrations. This would, in effect, prevent new guns from being made or imported. This would put the murder machine corporations out of business for good, and cut the money supply to the NRA/GOA. As money dries up, the political capital needed for new controls will be greatly reduced.

There are a few other things I would suggest. I would suggest an immediate, national ban on concealed carry. A ban on internet sales of guns and ammunition is a no brainer. Microstamping would also be a very good thing. Even if the only thing it does is drive up costs, it could still lead to crimes being solved. I'm willing to try every advantage we can get.

A national Firearms Owner Identification Card might be good, but I'm not sure if it's necessary if we have a national database. We should also insist on comprehensive insurance and mandatory gun safes, subject to random, spot checks by local and federal law enforcement.

We must make guns expensive and unpopular, just like cigarettes. A nationwide, antigun campaign paid for by a per gun yearly tax paid by owners, dealers, and manufacturers would work well in this regard. We should also segway into an anti-hunting campaign, like those in the UK. By making hunting expensive and unpopular, we can make the transition to a gun free society much less of a headache for us.

I know this seems harsh, but this is the only way we can be truly safe. I don't want my kids being shot at by a deranged NRA member. I'm sure you don't either. So lets stop looking for short term solutions and start looking long term. Registration is the first step.

Tell Pres. Obama and democrats in congress to demand mandatory, comprehensive gun registration. It's the only way we can ban guns with any effectiveness.

TAGS
FutureGuns
POLL
A total gun ban in the next 10 years?

I mean come on; is this guy wanting a police state or what? Treason............................

 

[Roadking Larry]

Here is my letter to Tom Coburn regarding ...This from the Washington Post

Senator Coburn:

With all due respect to the office you hold, I must ask if you are nuts. Are you nuts?

You were sent to Congress by the people of Oklahoma, among other reasons, to protect our inalienable rights; specifically, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Going along with anti-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms legislators to call for background checks on every arms sale is antithetical to liberty with its direct infringement upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

In the first place, the attempt to keep arms out of the hands of proven violent criminals is an abject failure. Calling for additional background checks will not reduce crime just like the current background checks do not reduce crime. Arms are not kept out of the hands of violent criminals with laws.

I've heard too much common sense come out of your mouth to know you know the following common sense: Only keeping violent criminals who have not been executed locked up, or institutionalized, or under full-time guardianship will keep violent felons from committing violent crime - regardless of the instrumentality.

The mere existence of the word "recidivism" is all the proof one needs to know that no law can keep arms out of the hands of violent criminals. All one can do is to physically keep the hands of the violent criminals away from arms.

If you wish to support the Second Amendment, propose legislation to remove the Feral(Federal) Government from its unconstitutional infringement upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Securing violent criminals away from arms - or any other instrumentality able to be misused violently - is the responsibility of the several states and law exists in each state to accomplish that, needing only minor modification to extend sentencing terms to assure no adjudicated violent criminal is ever released until it can be proven, on an individual basis, that each violent criminal will no longer commit or threaten to commit violent crime.

Your current position on any proposed or existing background checks on all free people who wish to procure arms demonstrates you have no regard for the Second Amendment, and brings into question your stance on any and all the rights of free people.

Before I learned of your stance on these background checks, I thought you were a glass of clean water sitting next to all those glasses full of dirty water populating the halls of Congress. Now that you've allowed that one drop of dirty water into your glass, well, how can your glass of water be considered clean?

You are a disappointment to me and have dropped the ball We the People of Oklahoma so trustingly handed you when we voted for you to represent our conservative Oklahoma and Godly values.

I wrote this letter not merely to admonish and berate you. I wrote this letter to inform you that you still have the opportunity to redeem yourself by taking the opportunity to protect our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Consider the oath you took to uphold the Constitution for the United States of America and honor yourself by honoring that oath.

As the Court said in Boyd v. United States: "It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon." The same should apply to legislation.

Sincerely,

Woody

I like it. Let us know if you get a reply to that.

I'm still drafting a response to this news. I'm wanting to work in something about Fast & Furious as well.

 

[Glocktogo]

And there it is. Groupthink
You're either with us or against us mentality. No questions are permitted.

I asked a question and challenged the assumption that UBC necessarily demands registration in order to be implemented.
I can see that's not acceptable here. You have to go along with the herd, err I mean crowd.

No, I don't favor UBC but I also don't believe that Coburn and the NRA would be exploring UBC that includes registration of any kind.
As a matter of fact, I'm confident that Coburn and the NRA would only go along with a UBC law that specifically forbids registration of any kind in the text of the law.

What you are all arguing against is registration, not UBC.
You are going to need to make that clear in the upcoming debates over the bill because as long as the debate is about UBC the opposition will portray you as "protecting felons and mental incompetents ability to buy guns". And THAT is a persuasive argument to many.

UBC is the only proposed change in law that has any chance of being passed as best as I can tell.
Your argument needs to be coherent and logical if you intend to defeat it.


If I was a legislator who was on the fence about UBC, none of you would have convinced me yet.

I have some questions for you. Do you even know what a UBC is? Has anyone proposing UBC's actually defined what it is? Is it mandatory checks at gun shows? For all private transfers? Any exemptions listed for immediate family or any other category?

No one knows what it will entail until we see the wording of the legislation. Which leads to my second question. Do you (or anyone else on this board for that matter) truly believe that that Congress can effectively embed the necessary constitutional protections to ensure that this can never lead to registration or confiscation? That it will never deny a law abiding citizen the right to possess a firearm? That it will never subject a person wishing to exercise their rights to onerous fees or taxes in order to exercise their rights? That it will offer a rapid and effective method to challenge a cause for denial?

As for Coburn wanting to improve efforts to deny mentally unstable persons from acquiring guns, there is only one measure that I would ever approve of. They need to make it mandatory for all courts to transmit information to NICS on those persons who've been adjudicated mentally incompetent in a court of law. It also needs to mandate transmittal of any court decision overturning an order of mental incompetence. It also needs to implement funding at the federal level for local and state courts to comply with this requirement.

I will never support the use of any health records in restricting the right of The People to keep and bear arms that hasn't been adjudicated in a court of law. Medical professionals are not trained in the proper application of constitutional law. They are not bound by the same Oath of Office, nor the rules of law in reporting mental health diagnoses. They are not required to allow or offer an independent verification before making a diagnosis that could ultimately restrict someone's constitutional rights.

I will outright say that I do not believe they can do these things in Congress. As a result, I cannot support any type of UBC legislation. To assume the current government we have would properly weight our constitutional rights against their own selfish interests is folly.

 

[Shadowrider]

And there it is. Groupthink
You're either with us or against us mentality. No questions are permitted.

I asked a question and challenged the assumption that UBC necessarily demands registration in order to be implemented.
I can see that's not acceptable here. You have to go along with the herd, err I mean crowd.

No, I don't favor UBC but I also don't believe that Coburn and the NRA would be exploring UBC that includes registration of any kind.
As a matter of fact, I'm confident that Coburn and the NRA would only go along with a UBC law that specifically forbids registration of any kind in the text of the law.

What you are all arguing against is registration, not UBC.
You are going to need to make that clear in the upcoming debates over the bill because as long as the debate is about UBC the opposition will portray you as "protecting felons and mental incompetents ability to buy guns". And THAT is a persuasive argument to many.

UBC is the only proposed change in law that has any chance of being passed as best as I can tell.
Your argument needs to be coherent and logical if you intend to defeat it.


If I was a legislator who was on the fence about UBC, none of you would have convinced me yet.

Well I've not read this thread until now and not to pile on, but here's where I'm at.

At this point I really couldn't care less about the whys, whens or how they think a UBC is a good idea. I'm just sick of giving and giving and giving. We gun owners have been doing ALL the giving since 1934. No more. I'm done compromising as it is currently practiced. Now if they want to give us gun owners back some of our rights in EXCHANGE for a UBC, I MIGHT be willing to go there if their UBC is agreeable. But I can guaran-damn-tee you that what I will require in return will most definitely not be agreeable to them. So there you have it. I ain't giving them jack and if they want to say that I'm "protecting felons and mental incompetents ability to buy guns" then so be it. I know better...

 

[henschman]

It seems Mr. Coburn has a little reading comprehension problem. What is so hard to understand about "shall not be infringed?" I mean, he says he is a Constitutionalist, so it can't be that he is selectively ignoring parts of that document... can it?