Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Coburn supports 'revisiting' gun control, but stresses prohibitions need 'cause'
thehill.com ^ | 20 January, 2011 | Mike Lillis

Posted on 01/21/2011 4:18:52 AM PST by marktwain

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), one of the fiercest Second Amendment defenders on Capitol Hill, supports another look at gun laws designed to block firearm sales to the mentally ill, his office said Thursday.

Congress passed such a law in 2007, following the shooting deaths of 32 students and teachers at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute. Yet the suspect in this month's Arizona shooting reportedly had little trouble buying a handgun in November, even despite earlier concerns about disturbing behavior and habitual drug use.

The tragic episode — in which a federal judge was killed and a congresswoman critically injured — has prompted gun reformers on and off Capitol Hill to call for additional scrutiny of the effectiveness of the 2007 law. On Thursday, Coburn's office said the Oklahoma Republican agrees.

"He is open to revisiting the law," Coburn spokesman John Hart wrote in an e-mail. "His goal is to make sure we have a way to ensure that people who are truly mentally ill and are a threat to themselves or others are not allowed to buy a firearm.

"However," Hart added, "he won’t support any measure that prohibits any American from buying or possessing a firearm without cause."

Asked whether Coburn would spearhead an effort to revisit the 2007 law, Hart said it's still "too soon to say."

In 1968, Congress enacted a law blocking gun sales to anyone deemed by a judge to be a "mental defective." Licensed gun dealers are currently required to consult the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to see if potential buyers fit that category — or any other prohibiting them from buying firearms.

The 2007 gun-reform law neither altered the "mental defective" designation nor expanded the categories of barred gun purchasers. Instead, it provided financial incentives to states to submit more information

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; coburn; control; mental; tomcoburn
The concept that the government could or should only "allow" certain people to have guns stands the very concept of American jurisprudence on its head. It presumes that the government knows all, controlls all, and should be doing so. It is wrong and ineffective.

It is crazy to set up a huge expensive bureaucratic system, require everyone to jump though hoops and prove that they are *not* criminals in order to try, ineffecively, to prevent the few individuals who are not responsible, from having legal access to guns.

This is a failed paradigm, and it should be abandoned. To accept the idea that the all gun sales should be monitored by the government, and only allowed to those it deems satisfactory is fundamentally wrong.

1 posted on 01/21/2011 4:18:56 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

A person so far out of his or her gourd as to imagine reasons to shoot someone else (not counting the prosaic crimes of robbery, murder etc.) ought to be in the rubber room until he or she recovers. Because guns aren’t the only way to kill — there’s knives, and poisons, and germs, and clubs, and such.


2 posted on 01/21/2011 4:22:15 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain; All

Coburn obviously has been bought off by the Beltway crowd.

And not the first he has jumped off the real conservative bandwagon: He supported John McCain very early on in the 2008 Presidential campaign.

Oklahoma is a good conservative state...and it may be time for them to Tea Party Mr Coburn out the next time he is up for re-election


3 posted on 01/21/2011 4:23:04 AM PST by UCFRoadWarrior (Whenever something is "Global"...it means its bad for America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), one of the fiercest Second Amendment defenders on Capitol Hill, supports another look at gun laws designed to block firearm sales to the mentally ill, his office said Thursday. Congress passed such a law in 2007...”

Yeah, you might want to consider another law, because that 2007 thingy worked out so well. Idiot.


4 posted on 01/21/2011 4:24:34 AM PST by Common Sense 101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Just outlaw schizophrenia. It would be just as effective.


5 posted on 01/21/2011 4:29:14 AM PST by paulycy (Just be truthful and accurate. Let civility take care of itself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

You have to wonder about all these so-called conservatives who veer to the left once in office.

Are they sociopaths who lied to get into office?

Are they that insecure that they need the approval of left-wing media?

Were they caught toe-tapping in bathroom stalls (Graham, Lugar?), or in bed with a dead girl or a live boy?

You don’t see the shift the other way where liberal Democrats become conservative. There’s something toxic about D.C.


6 posted on 01/21/2011 4:29:39 AM PST by peyton randolph (There is no such thing as moderate Islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Coburn got too close to the KoolAid, again.


7 posted on 01/21/2011 4:29:39 AM PST by PubliusMM (RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion. 01-20-2013: Change we can look forward to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Dr. Coburn has really gone squishy on us. Disappointing.


8 posted on 01/21/2011 4:41:11 AM PST by Nervous Tick (Trust in God, but row away from the rocks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Geez, not this sh*t again.

How can ANY self-respecting Republican, Conservative or not, FALL FOR THIS NONSENSICAL GUN CONTROL B.S.?

9 posted on 01/21/2011 4:51:59 AM PST by DocH (Official Right-Wing Extremist Veteran Seal Of Approval)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
"He is open to revisiting the law," Coburn spokesman John Hart wrote in an e-mail. "His goal is to make sure we have a way to ensure that people who are truly mentally ill and are a threat to themselves or others are not allowed to buy a firearm.

Hey Tom:

Mayhaps you can discuss your ideas with one of the most virulent, anti-2nd Amend (NAZI) Zealots in the Senate (Chuck-you-Schumer) in between singing verses of "Kumbaya" when you cozy up to him during the SOTU address next week?

What are they putting in the water in the Sodom on the Potomac, anyway?

10 posted on 01/21/2011 4:57:06 AM PST by Conservative Vermont Vet ((One of ONLY 37 Conservatives in the People's Republic of Vermont. Socialists and Progressives All))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Loughner was not a diagnosed psychotic, this law wouldn’t have stopped the Tuscon shooting.

You’re losing it Coburn, congress doesn’t need to act every time there’s a tragedy like this.


11 posted on 01/21/2011 5:02:38 AM PST by Brett66 (Where government advances, and it advances relentlessly , freedom is imperiled -Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Coburn is a scary dude. He comes to the senate as a no-nonsense conservative. Now after drinking the beltway water he wants to sit koombaya with his buddy Schumer. On top of that now he wants to re-visit the 2nd amendment, not to mention how he’s voted on some controversial bills.


12 posted on 01/21/2011 5:04:50 AM PST by kenmcg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH COBURN ALL OF A SUDDEN? First he wants to sit t the State of the Unionwith Chuck Schumer, the most partisan, belligerent, two-faced, lying SOB in the Senate. NOW, THIS CRAP?

This does not pass the smell test. WHAT DO THEY HAVE ON HIM?????? Photos? emails? men’s room footsie? Something is not right here.


13 posted on 01/21/2011 5:07:20 AM PST by SC_Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SC_Pete
“WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH COBURN ALL OF A SUDDEN?”

Senator Coburn has done excellent work. I would not put too much emphasis on a statement by an aid about something that has not happened yet. I suspect that this is an attempt to make Senator Coburn appear as more favorable to what the author wants than what is really the case.

I will wait for more information before I accuse him of moving the wrong way.

14 posted on 01/21/2011 5:11:20 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick

I think he just went through his “bearded marxist” phase.

He shaved it off now, but it looks like it addled his brain.


15 posted on 01/21/2011 5:15:27 AM PST by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Sheriff Dipstick is more responsible for the Tucson massacre than any gun control law laxity. He had ample indication that Loughner was unstable. Coburn should not buy into the liberal mindset that wanting a gun is a mental illness. If he wants to investigate whether voting Bolshecrat is a mental illness, have at it.


16 posted on 01/21/2011 5:30:50 AM PST by depressed in 06 (The only thing the ZerO administration is competent at is bad ideas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
I'm just waiting for the bombshell on the psychiatric meds Loughner was on. It'll be explosive against the MSM's patent storyline. Hurry up, Douglas Kennedy, we're all impatiently waiting.

Oops...should I have used a different set of expressions? /sarcasm

17 posted on 01/21/2011 5:31:08 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Coburn’s falling for the RATS “sitting together” scam was big a warning sign to me. The DemonRATS would NEVER have diluted their anti-Bush visual impact on national TV. They made their counter-presence obvious. Sitting together blunts the IMPACT, at least visually, of the November elections. DemonRATS seek power—complete and total power and the suffocation of our rights—not comaraderie. Coburn fell for the trick or he was coerced.


18 posted on 01/21/2011 5:33:21 AM PST by SC_Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
"His goal is to make sure we have a way to ensure that people who are truly mentally ill and are a threat to themselves or others are not allowed to buy a firearm.

That is a dangerous idea right there - far more dangerous than a weapon in an individual's hand. Just who gets to decide who is "mentally ill" or not, and who may be a "threat" to themselves or others? Further, mental illness is not a binary determination. Just how mentally ill, what kind of psychosis etc. will someone have to be before they are judged (yes, judged) to be unfit to own a firearm?

These questions are the heart of the matter. I seriously believe liberals and anyone who ascribes to the liberal philosophy and ideology are mentally ill. Two reasons for that.

First, they promote a system (socialism) that has been proven, yes proven time and again, to be a failure. There are no, nor have there ever been, socialist societies where the populace his happy, prosperous, and free. It just doesn't happen, period. Historical evidence and a dispassionate look at socialism and human nature quickly shows that it will never work. Yet these "liberals" keep promoting socialism and socialistic ideas. That's being disconnected from reality, and that is a mental disorder.

Second, socialism requires fascism to enforce its ideals. Human nature being what it is, no-one really likes the idea of a state entity confiscating their property and the fruits of their labors to redistribute to others - as the state sees fit. Therefore socialism requires a strong, oppressive state to enforce the wonderful {snort} ideals of socialism and collectivism. However, "liberals" will tell you that under socialism we'd all be happy and we'd all rise together on the tide. BS. Again, disconnected from reality - a mental illness. Or they know it is a lie and they are psychotic in that respect.

So I contend, and believe and I can defend (more fully than I have room for here) that "liberals" and leftists are, to no small degree, mentally ill. If we're going to prevent them from owning a firearm because they might hurt themselves or others... Shouldn't we really prevent them from hurting themselves and others via other means too? They should not be allowed to teach, to pass on their mentally deficient ideas and ideals to others. They shouldn't be allowed to make or influence laws that might impose their warped views on others. How's that sound lefty lurkers?

"However," Hart added, "he won’t support any measure that prohibits any American from buying or possessing a firearm without cause."

Hey, snapper head... Read The Bill of Rights. It is not yours (nor the governments') place to infringe on our rights at all. The right to own a firearm is not yours, nor anyone else's, to grant or not grant as you see fit. At best, if the government can show exceptional cause as to why someone should have one of their fundamental rights taken away, then they can be prevented from owning a firearm, or whatever other right the oppressors want to take. Fundamentally though, the burden of proof should be on the government as to why an inalienable right should be taken away. It is the same as trying to take away someone's right to live. I, or anyone else, should not have to prove our inalienable right prior to obtaining a firearm. It is that little concept of "innocent until proven guilty" that forms the basis of our laws. The government should have to prove to me and the seller that I am to be denied my rights. I should not have to prove I have the right.

19 posted on 01/21/2011 5:39:10 AM PST by ThunderSleeps (Stop obama now! Stop the hussein - insane agenda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Throwing more law and money at negligence solves nothing.


20 posted on 01/21/2011 5:42:25 AM PST by Gene Eric (Your Hope has been redistributed. Here's your Change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
A drunk ran over a cat. Congress calls to outlaw cats, cars, and alcohol.

These people are just too stupid to believe.


Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

21 posted on 01/21/2011 5:48:07 AM PST by The Comedian ("Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" - B. Goldwater)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
There is a MAJOR flaw in all of these ideas: Gun shops already sell guns to people they don't want to sell to.

There's a gun shop/shooting range that I've hung out at for over 40 years. I've become friends with both families that have owned it. They've sold guns to people that they were sure were: gangbangers, gun runners to Mexico, and nutcases. In every case the purchaser cleared the background check, so what choice did the gun shop have? Refuse them?

They'd get sued by the NAACP over refusing the gangbangers

They'd get sued by the MALDF over refusing the gun runners to Mexico

They'd get sued by the ACLU over refusing the nutcases.

Most of the people that work at gun shops have developed a good set of radar, and I'll bet could be very close to 100% accurate in predicting the reason a gun is being purchased.

But wait, we can't get them involved because they are the “enemy”, part of the “gun culture”. Let's come up with a hundred new stupid laws and systems, none of which will work.

22 posted on 01/21/2011 5:48:20 AM PST by I cannot think of a name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: peyton randolph
who veer to the left once in office.

They veer a lot earlier than that. All one has to do is really listen to what they say.

23 posted on 01/21/2011 6:13:49 AM PST by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: UCFRoadWarrior

I’m baffled by Coburn’s recent statements. Like you, I wonder if for some reason (money, threats, wanting to be “liked”—who knows) he’s gone over to the dark side. Red flags abound—from saying Nancy Pelosi is a nice person to saying he wanted to sit with Chuck Schumer at the SOTU address—not to mention, also working with him on gun control. Many Oklahomans refuse to see the warning signs, but something is changing with Dr. Tom Coburn.


24 posted on 01/21/2011 6:22:42 AM PST by MizSterious ("Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -JFK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

This all comes up after the AZ shooting, and the shooter’s background WAS checked by the FBI, and nothing turned up. Nothing CAN turn up unless for some reason a person has been under the care of a psychiatrist or been committed. That didn’t happen here. The parents knew he was going off the deep end, his friends knew it, certainly other students knew it. But since he never sought treatment (and since no around him forced him into treatment), his name wasn’t on anyone’s list. New laws will not change that.


25 posted on 01/21/2011 6:27:00 AM PST by MizSterious ("Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -JFK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Comedian

We have laws about drunk driving. Sort of like psychotic gun-owning.


26 posted on 01/21/2011 6:27:32 AM PST by drubyfive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Vermont Vet

According to an interview on our local (OKC) teevee last week, Coburn IS working with Schumer on gun legislation. Very sad.


27 posted on 01/21/2011 6:29:50 AM PST by MizSterious ("Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -JFK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
The concept that the government could or should only "allow" certain people to have guns stands the very concept of American jurisprudence on its head. It presumes that the government knows all, controlls all, and should be doing so. It is wrong and ineffective.

That's exactly the point.

28 posted on 01/21/2011 6:41:31 AM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: peyton randolph
You don’t see the shift the other way where liberal Democrats become conservative. There’s something toxic about D.C.

Outlaw electricity and refrigeration within five miles of the Capitol. Make them telecommute from offices in their districts, where they'll be constantly aware the tar and pitchforks are just on the other side of that wall....

29 posted on 01/21/2011 6:44:19 AM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Journalist’s Guide to Gun Violence Coverage
Guns are a sad fact of life in American culture and are a major topic in modern journalism. A good Journalist has a duty to get involved and make a difference in this important societal debate. By following certain guidelines, the concerned Journalist can be assured of having the maximum impact on this shameful problem.
The first principle to remember is that subtle use of terminology can covertly influence the reader. Adjectives should be chosen for maximum anti-gun effect. When describing a gun, attach terms like “automatic,” “semi-automatic,” “large caliber,” “deadly,” “high powered,” or “powerful.” Almost any gun can be described by one or more of these terms. More than two guns should be called an “arsenal.”
Try to include the term “assault weapon” if at all possible. This can be combined with any of the terms above for best results. Nobody actually knows what an assault weapon is, so you cannot be criticized for this usage. Your local anti-gun organization can provide you with a list of the latest buzz words like “junk guns,” “Saturday Night Specials,” and “the criminal’s weapon of choice.”
Don’t worry about getting technical details right. Many a reporter has accidentally written about semi-automatic revolvers or committed other minor errors. Since most people know little about guns, this is not a problem. Only the gun nuts will complain and they don’t count. The emotional content of your article is much more important than the factual details, since people are more easily influenced through their emotions than through logic.
Broadcast Journalists should have a file tape showing a machine gun firing on full automatic. Run this video while describing “automatic” weapons used in a crime or confiscated by police. At the least, a large graphic of a handgun should be displayed behind the on-air personality when reading any crime story.
Do not waste words describing criminals who use guns to commit crimes. Instead of calling them burglar, rapist, murderer, or repeat offender, simply use the term “gunman.” This helps the public associate all forms of crime and violence with the possession of guns.
Whenever drug dealers are arrested, guns are usually confiscated by the police. Mention the type and number of guns more prominently than the type and quantity of drugs. Include the number of rounds of ammunition seized, since the number will seem large to those who know little about guns. Obviously, the drug dealers who had the guns should now be called “gunmen.”
Political discussions on gun control legislation usually involve pro-gun organizations. Always refer to these organizations as “the gun lobby.” If space permits, mention how much money the gun lobby has spent to influence political campaigns and describe their legislative lobbying efforts as “arm twisting” or “threats.”
Gun owners must never be seen in a positive light. Do not mention that these misguided individuals may actually be well educated, or have respectable jobs and healthy families. They should be called “gun nuts” if possible or simply gun owners at best. Mention details about their clothing, especially if they are wearing hunting clothes or hats. Mention the simplistic slogans on their bumper stickers to show that their intelligence level is low. Many gun owners drive pickup trucks, hunt and live in rural areas. Use these details to help portray them as ignorant rednecks. Don’t use the word “hunt.” Always say that they “kill” animals.
Don’t be afraid to interview these people, they are harmless even though we don’t portray them that way. Try to solicit comments that can be taken out of context to show them in the worst possible light.
Never question the effectiveness of gun control laws or proposals. Guns are evil and kill people. Removing guns from society can only be good. Nobody really uses guns for legitimate self-defense, especially women or children. Any stories about armed self-defense must be minimized or suppressed.
Be careful about criticizing the police for responding slowly to 911 calls for help. It is best if the public feels like the police can be relied upon to protect them at all times. If people are buying guns to protect their families, you are not doing your job.
Emphasize stories where people kill family members and/or themselves with guns. It is important to make the public feel like they could lose control and start killing at any moment if they have a gun in the house. Any story where a child misuses a gun is front page material.
View every shooting as an event to be exploited. Always include emotional quotes from the victim’s family if possible. If they are not available, the perpetrator’s family will do nicely. The quote must blame the tragedy on the availability of guns. Photos or video of grieving family members are worth a thousand facts. Most people will accept the assertion that guns cause crime. It is much easier than believing that some people deliberately choose to harm others.
Your story should include terms like “tragic” or “preventable” and mention the current toll of gun violence in your city or state. Good reporters always know exactly how many gun deaths have occurred in their area since the first of the year. List two or three previous incidents of gun violence to give the impression of a continuing crime wave.
Little space should be devoted to shootings where criminals kill each other. Although these deaths greatly inflate the annual gun violence numbers, they distract from the basic mission of urging law abiding citizens to give up their guns. Do not dig too deeply into the reasons behind shootings. The fact that a gun was involved is the major point, unless someone under 18 is affected, in which case the child angle is now of equal importance.
Any article about gun violence should include quotes from anti-gun organizations or politicians. One quote should say that we must do something “for the children.” Anti-gun spokespersons should be called “activists” or “advocates.” If your employer wishes to appear unbiased, you can include one token quote from a gun lobby group to show that you are being fair. The anti-gun statements should be accepted as fact. The gun lobby statement can be denigrated by including text like, “according to gun lobbyist Jones.”
Fortunately, statements from anti-gun organizations come in short sound bites that are perfect for generating an emotional response in the reader or viewer. Gun lobby statements usually contain boring facts that are easy to ignore.
Feel secure in your advocacy journalism. The vast majority of your fellow Journalists support your activism. The nation will be a better place when only the police and military have guns. Remember that you are doing it for the children so the end justifies the means.
Eventually, the government will have a monopoly on power. Don’t worry about the right to freedom of the press, just contact me then for more helpful hints.
Professor Michael Brown School of Journalism, Brady Chair Vancouver College of Liberal Arts
Political Satire, copyright 1999, Michael Brown. May be reproduced freely in its full and complete form. The author may be contacted at mb@e-z.net
Contact: Alan Korwin BLOOMFIELD PRESS “We publish the gun laws.” 4848 E. Cactus #505-440 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 602-996-4020 Phone 602-494-0679 FAX 1-800-707-4020 Orders http://www.gunlaws.com alan@gunlaws.com Call, write, fax or click for a free full-color catalog


30 posted on 01/21/2011 7:19:32 AM PST by WOBBLY BOB ( "I don't want the majority if we don't stand for something"- Jim Demint)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Psychiatry and the law are so deeply and flagrantly in bed. Pass a law like that, and in no time at all, you’ll be adjudged mentally ill BECAUSE you want a gun.


31 posted on 01/21/2011 7:23:38 AM PST by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Could we red flag all patients placed on certain drugs and presenting select symptoms? Part of the information given by the MD that he would submit a quick form to red flag ( stop) gun sale to the patient with no other info given because of Hipa laws. It can be undone by the same MD if patient meets criteria to be removed. It seems simple.
I fully realize this would force people intent on harming others or themselves to knives, fists and other means. It would not be 25 at a time.


32 posted on 01/21/2011 7:46:06 AM PST by oldironsides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: marktwain; The Comedian; NFHale
This is a failed paradigm, and it should be abandoned.

and the evidence of the failure is a neon epic failure, yet 'one of the fiercest' 2A defenders in *DC* is willing to add a few saw strokes to the branch we're sittin on to appease the ENEMY and save face and the perks of being a 'prince' among the royal thieves...

is there even one politician that will uphold his oath, and use his position [and television opportunities] for the push to rollback this crap, back towards FReedom ???

so far Ive only heard a lil lip service before elections...

33 posted on 01/21/2011 7:49:38 AM PST by Gilbo_3 (Gov is not reason; not eloquent; its force.Like fire,a dangerous servant & master. George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThunderSleeps

one of the best ive read lately...but would add that anyone walking the streets should, by common sense and law, retain all of their Rights...as you demonstrated...


34 posted on 01/21/2011 7:58:28 AM PST by Gilbo_3 (Gov is not reason; not eloquent; its force.Like fire,a dangerous servant & master. George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

There is no “cause” for tyranny Coburn you asshat!


35 posted on 01/21/2011 8:14:55 AM PST by mrmeyer ("When brute force is on the march, compromise is the red carpet." Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gilbo_3; marktwain; The Comedian; ThunderSleeps

“...Yet the suspect in this month’s Arizona shooting reportedly had little trouble buying a handgun in November, even despite earlier concerns about disturbing behavior and habitual drug use...”

The POINT BEING is that IF the Douchebag Sheriff, currently mouthing off, would have done HIS job and arrested the Perp for drug use, trouble/threat making, etc., etc., on any ONE of the multiple occasions that he had to perform his JOB as a Public Servant - then Loughner WOULD have had a record, and would have been instantly declined by the National Instant Check system, and the State level instant check as well.

Or...on the other hand, he could simply have bought one out of the trunk of Jamal or Julio’s low rider in the barrio...

But hey...let’s just let the media and all the others skim over those troublesome little facts!!!


36 posted on 01/21/2011 8:56:11 AM PST by NFHale (The Second Amendment - By Any Means Necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: NFHale
in all fairness, even *if* sheriff assbag had locked the nutzo up, when hes runnin the streets again, IMO, he should be 'FRee' and be restored to citizenship...

if hes too 'dangerous/unstable' to posses weapons, then keep em locked up...with impartial judicial review of course...

37 posted on 01/21/2011 1:23:14 PM PST by Gilbo_3 (Gov is not reason; not eloquent; its force.Like fire,a dangerous servant & master. George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: UCFRoadWarrior
Oklahoma is a good conservative state...and it may be time for them to Tea Party Mr Coburn out the next time he is up for re-election

Thankfully, he is term limiting himself, as he did in the House. Sadly, this shows the corrupting influence of the inside the beltway crowd.

progressivism the gift that keeps on giving.

38 posted on 01/21/2011 1:56:32 PM PST by itsahoot (Almost everything I post is Sarcastic, since I have no sense of humor about politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

“Outlaw electricity and refrigeration”
****
For every advancement HVAC has enabled in the private sector, there has been at least one step toward socialism made in government because of it.

Congress would meet only a couple of months per year if HVAC were banned in DC. Let’s do it for “the environment.” :-)


39 posted on 01/21/2011 2:09:16 PM PST by peyton randolph (There is no such thing as moderate Islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: NFHale

You’re right. If that loud-mouthed incompetent Sheriff manages to skate out of this while keeping his job, without criminal negligence charges, without civil liability suits... Well, then there really is no justice left.


40 posted on 01/21/2011 8:01:20 PM PST by ThunderSleeps (Stop obama now! Stop the hussein - insane agenda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: oldironsides
Could we red flag all patients placed on certain drugs and presenting select symptoms?
With specific legislation "we" could. Apparently any law can be established (just look at the health Care bill that passed into law) even if it's against the Constitution as currently amended.

I fully realize this would force people intent on harming others or themselves to knives, fists and other means.
That's the crux of it, isn't it. There are many ways to kill someone if you're intent on the deed and you can't regulate them all.

It would not be 25 at a time.
Better take cars off the road then. That 25 wouldn't be anything but speed bumps.

41 posted on 01/21/2011 9:17:01 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson