Does anyone remember the affordable care act. "It's OK, the supreme court will strike it down as unconstitutional." Didn't that work out well for us? Coburn's a turncoat traitor, of this I have no doubt. He voted with the communists and deserves eternal scorn from all true patriots.
+2 he won't get my vote ever again!!!
I'm way ahead of you boys though, he never had my vote in the first place. I saw what he was from the very beginng. The fact that he idn't running no more aint the half of it.
Coburn doesn't plan to run for Senate again so we have no recourse there.
If he does decide to run for anything in the future, he won't have my vote.
As far as his vote to advance cloture and bring the bill to the floor, it's not as bad as actually voting in favor of the bill. That said, I'm for employing every tactic including filibuster to protect my 2A rights. It's a shame that Coburn didn't see it that way. Of course, he's been sucking up to the left on this bill all along and trying to reach a compromise. I honestly don't understand where his head is at? He's been talking out of both sides of his mouth.
If he does decide to run for anything in the future, he won't have my vote.
As far as his vote to advance cloture and bring the bill to the floor, it's not as bad as actually voting in favor of the bill. That said, I'm for employing every tactic including filibuster to protect my 2A rights. It's a shame that Coburn didn't see it that way. Of course, he's been sucking up to the left on this bill all along and trying to reach a compromise. I honestly don't understand where his head is at? He's been talking out of both sides of his mouth.
YOU DON'T GET TO DEBATE OR VOTE ON CHANGING THE BILL OF RIGHTS in the same manner as you pass other laws!!! That is not the legal constitutional process. THE BASTARDS IN DC KNOW IT. They also know the people don't want it, if they did they would AMEND the constitution through the proper process.
Would you really care what color the condom is when you are raped? Does it make you feel better that you knew who voted red or blue, lubed, ribbed, or none at all? You're still getting ****ED!
Would you really care what color the condom is when you are raped? Does it make you feel better that you knew who voted red or blue, lubed, ribbed, or none at all? You're still getting ****ED!
So how do you determine if a piece of legislation changes the bill of rights before it is brought to the Congress and introduced into the legislative process?
What's your suggestion? Who should we submit legislation to, prior to introduction to Congress, to pass this "Constitutional Litmus Test"?
What's your suggestion? Who should we submit legislation to, prior to introduction to Congress, to pass this "Constitutional Litmus Test"?
Dear Mr. XXXXX,
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
He's talking out both sides of his mouth...you can't filibuster once you vote for cloture and he knew that all along.
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
He's talking out both sides of his mouth...you can't filibuster once you vote for cloture and he knew that all along.
Blatantly unconstitutional bills should be shot down in committee. Doesn't get much clearer than "Shall Not Be Infringed." And if you think a bill is unconstitutional you should filibuster it. And if they refuse to show you the bill until after the vote, you should filibuster it.
Everyone who believe 'shall not be infringed' means what it says should have filibustered this bill as should anyone who believes a bill should be written and read before receiving a vote.
Read the Bill of Rights. If you wish to introduce legislation that suspends, revokes, limits, or alters those rights then it has to go through the amendment process. Debate all you want but it comes to the floor as proposed amendment to the constitution. Get the required senate and state votes and you get your amendment. The senators know this and they know the difference. They know they will never get the bill of rights amended. Hence our present predicament.
I'm quite familiar with the Bill of Rights. You are missing the point. There has to be a process for determining if said legislation "suspends, revokes, or limits those rights" and should go through the Constitutional amendment process. Since there is no external body to review a piece of legislation to determine it's constitutionality...then the only way to determine that is to introduce it, debate it, and vote on it. That's the whole point of Congress.
N2sooners answered the question a little more logically, thanks. If the committee's are the firewall, how did they get this bill past the committe process?
Similar threads
