US Senator Coburn (R-OK) Introduces Gun Control of His Own (not kidding!!!)

[DFarcher]

"lukewarm" Now that's just plain Biblical, just don't know how a guy can add to that!

Seriously, I hold our politicians in about as low esteem as the next reasonable man, but I guess I've always pretty much agreed with one of them, that being Colburn. He's about as far "Right" as Ron Paul when it comes down to it, at least judging from everything I've heard him say and everything I've read. He surprised me with his vote on the BGCs and I wrote his office, along with six other congressmen and senators, as I've done in the past on 2A issues. He answered and I was somewhat satisfied with the answer. Based on his views and work to address debt, social issues, State-Rights, based on his work exposing government waste, on his advocacy for limited government and on his own political philosophies (including his own self-imposed term limits) and on a record which stands by those philosophies, I think he's a stand-up guy and one of the very very few in Washington.

I do not believe we enforce the laws we have and enforce laws we DO NOT have and I don’t argue for more laws but I think that’s where he’s coming from and I think sometimes strategy can be devised to take the steam out of a movement or a steamroller. Seems to me he offered something that takes nothing away from me as a gun owner. And there are a lot of folks wanting to put as much as .02-.05 cents per bullet tax to fund dramatic expansion of Background Checks and do some serious infringement. Will his suggested proposals help, will criminals and low life’s still get guns? Not to sure about the first part of that question but certain about the second part… yes they will. Would it prevent me the imposition of something far more dramatic and intrusive future efforts in this political gamemanship from the left? I’m thinking it might. Did I see anything that limits me. No. But more importantly, might it put this frenzy to bed without giving up rights… I believe that Coburn believes it will. In other words I believe he is sincere. And I believe his is one person in Washington undeserving of character assassination. Once again, just 'my humble opinion', lest anyone feel the need to remind me -- rest assured I understand that already and am aware we all have our own.

Excellent post...now prepare to be mercilessly bludgeoned for not being in 100% agreement with the mob!

 

[mugsy]

what? you do understand that the revolution was fought using privately owned weapons, many pf which were superior to those of the occupying british...

The above is a gross oversimplification. It is true that the militia - i.e. freemen who bore their own arms - played a key role in the American Revolution but it false to say they played the only role or even the most important role in all phases of the war. As the war progressed General Washington was constantly striving to professionalize his troops simply because the various militia could not be relied upon to stay and fight (some would, some wouldn't) for a host of reasons and because the Revolutionary forces were losing over time. I am not discounting the role of the militia but it can and has been here greatly overstated. BTW Lord Cornwallis' surrendered at Yorktown because of a French Fleet and a, largely by then professionalized, American army working in concert with professional French soldiers (it was truly a combined/joint land and sea battle). The militia was a key influence but did not win the war alone and one could argue could not have won the war alone.

 

[Sanford]

Well - as I see it "they" (meaning congress, courts, white house, or some other agency or entity) are going to do "something" because too many people (and especially the media) keep yelling "do something!"; they can't get by with doing "nothing".

What Coburn has proposed isn't perfect, but it's "something" that stands a reasonable chance of placating that voice without being nearly as objectionable as some of the ideas some of the other folks up there have been tossing around.

So, even though I don't particularly like it and would much prefer "nothing" I could support this if it's enough to make them happy to have something to point to and say "we did something".

(ps - in my experience 90% of the federal government's activity is less about "doing something" than being able to check a box somewhere that says "we did something").

 

[otis147]

The above is a gross oversimplification. It is true that the militia - i.e. freemen who bore their own arms - played a key role in the American Revolution but it false to say they played the only role or even the most important role in all phases of the war. As the war progressed General Washington was constantly striving to professionalize his troops simply because the various militia could not be relied upon to stay and fight (some would, some wouldn't) for a host of reasons and because the Revolutionary forces were losing over time. I am not discounting the role of the militia but it can and has been here greatly overstated. BTW Lord Cornwallis' surrendered at Yorktown because of a French Fleet and a, largely by then professionalized, American army working in concert with professional French soldiers (it was truly a combined/joint land and sea battle). The militia was a key influence but did not win the war alone and one could argue could not have won the war alone.

men showed up. with their own weapons. the war progressed, but would never have begun if not for men with their own guns.

 

[mugsy]

men showed up. with their own weapons. the war progressed, but would never have begun if not for men with their own guns.

Please re-read what I wrote, I gave the militia its due, but I also added some context and perspective without which one gets a false interpretation of historical events.

 

[caojyn]

There is only one outcome of passing this. At first it's optional and then some other mass shooting happen. It could be next year, it could be 10 years down the line, but it's bound to happen and that'll be used again to "prove" gun laws aren't strict enough. So some representative in the future will then pass a law requiring it, since it's already accessible to the masses it'll pass....and so on....and so one....and rinse and repeat.

 

[Sanford]

There is only one outcome of passing this. At first it's optional and then some other mass shooting happen. It could be next year, it could be 10 years down the line, but it's bound to happen and that'll be used again to "prove" gun laws aren't strict enough. So some representative in the future will then pass a law requiring it, since it's already accessible to the masses it'll pass....and so on....and so one....and rinse and repeat.

You're probably right - and the sad fact is that unless the entire nation turns in some other direction that or something similar probably *will* happen at some point whether or not this particular piece of legislation is passed.

 

[Aku]

Well - as I see it "they" (meaning congress, courts, white house, or some other agency or entity) are going to do "something" because too many people (and especially the media) keep yelling "do something!"; they can't get by with doing "nothing".

What Coburn has proposed isn't perfect, but it's "something" that stands a reasonable chance of placating that voice without being nearly as objectionable as some of the ideas some of the other folks up there have been tossing around.

So, even though I don't particularly like it and would much prefer "nothing" I could support this if it's enough to make them happy to have something to point to and say "we did something".

(ps - in my experience 90% of the federal government's activity is less about "doing something" than being able to check a box somewhere that says "we did something").

This kinda sums up my feelings on the subject.

This whole 2a debate is a tremendous waste of time and resources, created by those with nefarious political agendas. To do something in order to try and stop the "steamroller" is exactly what the liberals want, when in fact nothing should be passed. Just enforce the laws which are already in place would do wonders. You can't stop a nutcase, and criminals will always find guns. Being able to protect yourself is really the only true option. If government really wanted to address the issue, then repeal the gun-free zone act and any other legislation limiting the use of firearms.

In terms of Coburn's amendment, I do think that providing the public with a "do not sell" list is something that should have happened a long time ago. It's simply prudent to perform due diligence when selling a firearm.

 

[Glocktogo]

Excellent post...now prepare to be mercilessly bludgeoned for not being in 100% agreement with the mob!

So now we're a mob eh? Let me tell you what conclusions I've drawn about you from your posts.

1. You're an appeaser. You don't care what you have to give up in a vain attempt to try and appease an unappeasable segment of society.

2. You're a liberal. Your whole "living document" shtick is straight out of the anti-gunner's rulebook.

3. You may or may not actually own a single gun, but your appearance on this forum happens to coincide with a recent influx of posers on many pro-gun forums who are aligned with MAIG and other anti-gun groups.

4. You have not earned the trust of this forum and quite frankly, your position on this matter is absolutely out of line with the mainstream gun owner, NRA member or anyone who's actually fought to preserve our rights.

So while you aren't required to prove anything here, neither are we required to believe anything you say. Absent any solid evidence to prove you are in fact pro-gun, I will continue to view you and your posts with suspicion.

Good Day Sir!

 

[DFarcher]

So now we're a mob eh? Let me tell you what conclusions I've drawn about you from your posts.

1. You're an appeaser. You don't care what you have to give up in a vain attempt to try and appease an unappeasable segment of society.

2. You're a liberal. Your whole "living document" shtick is straight out of the anti-gunner's rulebook.

3. You may or may not actually own a single gun, but your appearance on this forum happens to coincide with a recent influx of posers on many pro-gun forums who are aligned with MAIG and other anti-gun groups.

4. You have not earned the trust of this forum and quite frankly, your position on this matter is absolutely out of line with the mainstream gun owner, NRA member or anyone who's actually fought to preserve our rights.

So while you aren't required to prove anything here, neither are we required to believe anything you say. Absent any solid evidence to prove you are in fact pro-gun, I will continue to view you and your posts with suspicion.

Good Day Sir!

Deleted...sending a PM.