Skip to comments.The 16 Senate Republicans who think the 2nd Amendment is up for debate
Posted on 04/11/2013 2:28:40 PM PDT by JohnPDuncan
Sixteen Republicans voted in favor of the motion, while two Democrats both from states President Obama lost in the 2012 election voted against it. The two Democrats were Sens. Mark Begich (Alaska) and Mark Pryor (Ark.), both of whom face reelection next year.
The 16 Republicans who voted to proceed were Sens. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), Richard Burr (N.C.), Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), Susan Collins (Maine), Bob Corker (Tenn.), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Dean Heller (Nev.), John Hoeven (N.D.), Johnny Isakson (Ga.), Mark Kirk (Ill.), John McCain (Ariz.), Pat Toomey (Pa.) and Roger Wicker (Miss.). Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) missed the vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Send them all home permanently
Republicans proving once again that voting for them is not much different than voting Democrat.
When you are elected to Congress as a Republican you are required to take a secret oath to “The Club” and to foresake any conservative principles for the good of the Club.
Oh - the rules for The Club are established by the Democrat members exclusively.
The Republican members of the club are more interested in listening to Club Auxiliaries like Karl Rove and Bill O’Reilly than people like you.
So don’t be upset when these elected Republicans jump ship. They are working for the Club, not you.
If we lose, we know it is time to take up arms. If we win, we know who to fire (at).
It was suggested on another blog that this could be a political chess move. Force Democrats from pro-gun states into a corner. If they vote “Aye” on the actual bill, they risk losing their seats in 2014. Your mileage may vary.
All of the need to be defeated in the next primary. I am sick and tired of voting for people who stab us in the back.
If any of the candidates make it past the next primary, vote third party or write-in.
The Toomey-Manchin Kill The Bill of Rights Bill.
TITLE ONE: GETTING ALL THE NAMES OF PROHIBITED PURCHASERS INTO THE BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM
Summary of Title I: This section improves background checks for firearms by strengthening the instant check system.
- Encourage states to provide all their available records to NICS by restricting federal funds to states who do not comply.
By "all their available records" just what records are they blackmailing states for with that statist bilge water? "All" is a pretty big word when only a very few records are applicable to denying someone their right to keep and bear arms.
- Allow dealers to voluntarily use the NICS database to run background checks on their prospective employees.
Does that means dealers can run NICS checks on prospective employees without their knowledge or consent? I have no idea what the word 'voluntarily' means there. Does it mean dealers will be allowed to not run NICS checks if they prefer not to?
- Clarifies that submissions of mental health records into the NICS system are not prohibited by federal privacy laws (HIPAA).
Submissions of mental health records? Since when has it been legal to deny any American their rights without due process? Isn't it required that a person be adjudicated mentally deficient by a court of law to do that? Mental health records are entirely irrelevant except to those court proceedings. This bill sounds like Stalinist purge material.
- Provides a legal process for a veteran to contest his/her placement in NICS when there is no basis for barring the right to own a firearm.
Is that an admission that the Bill of Rights doesn't cover veterans or an admission that it doesn't cover anyone anymore?
why is it that “Republicans” seem to ... so often ... screw us !?
let’s replace these people, they plainly don’t give a hoot about their oath of office anyway....
That’s a silly argument. Having this bill on the floor is a nightmare. They will amend it to ban weapons and the Newtown relatives will be on your TV weeping all weekend.
The president will demand weapons bans and ammo restrictions. This is anti-2nd amendment and dangerous. The idea was to kill it as soon as possible. Who gives a crap about the Dems.
Conservative representation in Congress is virtually nil, while homosexuals which comprise somewhere in the 2-3% range of the population have managed to set the daily agenda in DC.
Up for debate is exactly what they think, and they ought to be sent home permanently, the Second Amendment is plainspoken and not open for debate or the whims of democrats or RINOs.
Well, now is the time to start getting the word out and getting THEM out of office, as well as getting the rabid anti freedom dems booted out as well.
I agree, but it is one of the theories out there. Personally, I am sick of “strategic” moves by the GOP. It usually comes back to bite them.
It's probably less than that.
A lot of familiar names on the list...
“Send them all home permanently”
I was saying that in 1998 about two of them...Chambliss and Isakson. They along with the rest of the Georgia delegation then in the house wrote a letter to the Clinton administration demanding they STOP workplace enforcement of illegal aliens because it was ticking of their big Vidalia Onion contributors.
Just think...Clinton actually tried to enforce the law, and a bunch of selfish republicans gave him an excuse not to...how’s that for irony? And what a smaller problem we’d have today, if we’d kept enforcing it.
And all these years later, here they are promoted to the Senate. Wow. And still causing damage.
” When you are elected to Congress as a Republican you are required to take a secret oath to The Club and to foresake any conservative principles for the good of the Club.”
Is that the DMR club?
Democrats masquerading as Republicans.
I don’t really see a downside to “debating” the second amendment. It will put those who oppose our constitutional rights on record and help us prioritize our target list. That includes some that we may mistakenly think of as “our own”.