Senate Republicans Screw Gun Owners 2013 Assault Weapons Ban and the Magazine Ban (S.649)

I will keep on bumping this because only 1 other thread is made regarding this. You are now living in a fascist and or communist country.

they won't give up. there's no diff between repub or demo, there's only king hussein.

Screw the Senate Republicans for agreeing to a debate on the Senate floor.

Because as everyone knows, people with guns, DO NOT HAVE TO DEBATE!!!

Thread: Illegal Senate Vote to Amend the 2nd Amendment (4-11)

The other thread about the fascist/communist states of America.

its not gonna pass the house, all they voted on was to DEBATE it.

im a gun owner and i firmly belive in the 2nd, and dont want anymore new laws PERIOD

buti thought this was vote to have a debate on the issue ?

I'll be calling up Toomey's office tomorrow.

THIS is the reason for the Korean theater production.....
3 Card Monte at it"s finest !!

It's democracy, dude. They're your elected representatives passing laws on your behalf.

The parliament is simply a reflection of community values.

It'll never happen.

Who is going to enforce these draconian measures? Cops with families to think about? I don't think so.

Senator Diane Feinstein announced she would introduce a Federal assault weapons ban bill in the U.S. Senate[26] following the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.[27] The bill as of January 25, 2013 has a provision where the sunset clause which was part of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban will be eliminated and will be directed at firearms with detachable magazines and at least one single military feature. Republicans who control Congress (primarily the U.S. House of Representatives) and Senate Democrats from pro-gun states are likely to oppose the proposed ban. The GOP Congressional delegation from the State of Texas (a pro-gun state) have condemned Sen. Feinstein's bill, along with the pro-gun lobby inclusive of the NRA.[28] On March 14, 2013, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a version of the bill along party lines.[29]

I posed a question to Senator Coburn a couple of days ago concerning his position. I got a response from him within the hour (clearly a copy/paste), obviously as a couple of others I know received the same response.

Here is a response from Coburn:
Dear Mr. XXXXXXX,
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

When are we going to realize it's all just a gun grab by fractions??? They will take a little take a bit , take some until its all gone. That is the end result. Wait for another event, they will take again then there will be nothing left.. You know where this will end up. Take action now or die on your knees!!!!!!!

cops are no human beings

touche!

This is Coburn's statement from today. (less than 50%)

Apr 11 2013
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.
For the rest of his statement, click below.
[link to www.coburn.senate.gov]

It'll probably be UN forces if it comes to that.

And god help us if it does.

It's about time we show them what the LAW really is.

Blue helmets are easy to target..

There is no reason for debate when the real issue is the pharmaceuticals that these people have taken and all the countless others since colombine.

Google list-of-school-shootings-on-antidepressants

Last Edited by 6Gunfanatic-Foodhoarder7 on 04/12/2013 02:55 AM

Thats the old bill that was signed into law and expired isn't it?

All this tough talk and I thought I was supposed to be the terrorist.

the hammer has fallen my gun stroking fellas

What if it's Not? What if those 'elected' Representatives have a 'higher' calling? What if they are 'elected' with the help of Corporate Lobbying, and are a reflection of the will of a few people with the money to eventually change anything they want for their own agendas?

Exactly! This is the elephant in the room that no politician wants to address. Pharmaceuticals are far more responsible for murders than guns. And what is their solution to these shootings?...more fucking meds! Unbelievable!

Someone needs to introduce a bill banning SSRIs and antipsychotics.

Here is a link to the actual text of s. 649

[link to www.govtrack.us]