Coburn sold us out!

[Wheel Gun]

This is what Reid Mullens (KTOK) just posted on Facebook:

Official response from office of Sen. Tom Coburn sent to me:

Dr. Coburn’s Statement on Vote to Begin Debate on Second Amendment Issues

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) released the following statement today regarding his vote to begin debate on S. 649:

“Today’s vote was an opportunity for senators to do what they were elected to do and begin debate on a critical issue in our country. Today’s vote was simply a vote to begin debate and not an endorsement of the current bill. I will not support ending debate and moving to final passage of any bill that compromises the Second Amendment rights or the privacy of law abiding citizens.

“I look forward to offering multiple amendments in the coming days, including an amendment to replace the unworkable Manchin-Toomey with a proposal that will protect Americans’ Second Amendment rights while giving law abiding citizens the tool they need to make sure they aren’t transferring a firearm to someone who will be a threat to themselves or others. I also intend to offer or support amendments to protect the Second Amendment rights of veterans and Americans who have concealed carry permits, among other issues. Today’s vote enables me to offer those amendments, and help give the American people the debate they deserve.”

 

[Lurkerinthewoods]

The problem is, this isn't a critical issue to those who believe in the 2A. Our 2A rights don't need debated. I would rather these idiots take an extended vacation and stop worrying about things that don't need fixed.

 

[saddlebum]

The constitution should never be up for debate

 

[SMS]

So how then do we make determinations on legislation prior to introducing it into our Constitutional legislative process of introduction, debate, discussion, and a vote? Shall we establish an un-Constitutional external "Super-Committee" to investigate and intepret every piece of legislation to determine it's Constitutionality before it can even be introduced in the House or Senate?

This is how our system works. Draft legislation, bring it to the floor for debate. Vote on it. Get the other body of Congress to vote on it. Send it to the Pres.

 

[Blitzfike]

The problem is, this isn't a critical issue to those who believe in the 2A. Our 2A rights don't need debated. I would rather these idiots take an extended vacation and stop worrying about things that don't need fixed.

What he said...

 

[Coded-Dude]

So how then do we make determinations on legislation prior to introducing it into our Constitutional legislative process of introduction, debate, discussion, and a vote? Shall we establish an un-Constitutional external "Super-Committee" to investigate and intepret every piece of legislation to determine it's Constitutionality before it can even be introduced in the House or Senate?

This is how our system works. Draft legislation, bring it to the floor for debate. Vote on it. Get the other body of Congress to vote on it. Send it to the Pres.

Bills generally go to a committee before hitting the floor and if these committees were doing their jobs we wouldn't have to worry about it. Unfortunately, unconstitutional "agenda bills" make it to the floor all the time.

 

[Cinaet]

The debate phase of the process is where the merits, and even the Constitutionality, of legislation can, and are intended to be, discussed. Not every issue is clearly defined, so it's a little hard to pre-judge every piece of legislation and not even allow it to the floor for debate.

His "yes" vote simply lets the bill come forward to be seen in the light of day, it's not a vote of support for the bill itelf. It also allows the final votes for or against the bill to be seen and be a permanent part of the voting record of every Senator.

No offense SMS, but I think you guys who believe this is some kind of strategy are whistling past the graveyard. I hope I'm wrong, but I think we're being sold out.

 

[30BulletHoles]

For all those on board with having their freedom debated to they can compile a list of yes votes to know where they stand, I wish you luck in trying to uproot senators that you can't vote for or against.

Maybe we should debate the fine points of the rest of the bill of rights while we are at it.

Those defending Coburn for supporting legislation regarding Internet background checks and proof of ID can do do those things right now, under current law. The difference is its not a felony of you choose not to.

 

[Pokinfun]

He won't get my vote ever again.

 

[SMS]

Bills generally go to a committee before hitting the floor and if these committees were doing their jobs we wouldn't have to worry about it. Unfortunately, unconstitutional "agenda bills" make it to the floor all the time.

True, but committies aren't part of the constitutional process. They are an internal created mechanism created to organize and facilitate the process of introducting, debating and voting on legislation. There is no constitutional mechanism to validate the "constitutionality" of legislation prior to it's introduction to the process...so demanding that "unconstitutional" legislation shouldn't be introduced at all is itself unconstitutional.

No offense SMS, but I think you guys who believe this is some kind of strategy are whistling past the graveyard. I hope I'm wrong, but I think we're being sold out.

I'm being optimisitc....raging on the internet isn't going to work. I will watch, wait, and take note of how it goes down.

For all those on board with having their freedom debated to they can compile a list of yes votes to know where they stand, I wish you luck in trying to uproot senators that you can't vote for or against.

Maybe we should debate the fine points of the rest of the bill of rights while we are at it.

Those defending Coburn for supporting legislation regarding Internet background checks and proof of ID can do do those things right now, under current law. The difference is its not a felony of you choose not to.

A vote for Cloture is not a vote on the merits of a piece of legislation. See above.