Coburn sold us out!

[caojyn]

I dont want this being debated. Then it will have a good chance of passing. And we sure dont want that. I would rather it not get debated rather than to just so we know who to vote out.

agreed, the only possible outcomes of this are either keeping the status quo or a further deterioration of our rights.

 

[ragsflh]

if ya get it out in open maybe we can see what reid has in his bill,like how they crammed oba care with out reading any of it

 

[sanjuro893]

Coburn put a statement out on his FB page. Some of the comments are supportive but the vast majority call him a traitor.
https://www.facebook.com/teamcoburn?fref=ts

 

[vicious]

Had I not met him at a town hall meeting and directly discussed this, I'd be on the same page. What Coburn was promoting is in line with those on here who will only deal with people with a SDA license or through a FFL, a simple online check to see if the person you're selling to is a felon or diagnosed psychotic. You'd basically need to check their DL and cross reference it through a NICS web portal. No more FFL required and no real way of validating whether or not it was done. Basically it's a value added service in my eyes. That said, the bill in front of them isn't that way, but that's what he's going to try to make it.

I like the guy. He has integrity, and appears to stand by what he says.

 

[RonBurgundy]

Coburn put a statement out on his FB page. Some of the comments are supportive but the vast majority call him a traitor.
https://www.facebook.com/teamcoburn?fref=ts

I love the comments from the folks saying they won't vote for him again.

 

[JD8]

The debate phase of the process is where the merits, and even the Constitutionality, of legislation can, and are intended to be, discussed. Not every issue is clearly defined, so it's a little hard to pre-judge every piece of legislation and not even allow it to the floor for debate.

His "yes" vote simply lets the bill come forward to be seen in the light of day, it's not a vote of support for the bill itelf. It also allows the final votes for or against the bill to be seen and be a permanent part of the voting record of every Senator.

Oh look, logic instead of FUD..... rare 'round these parts.

 

[tacmedic]

Coburns form letter states he would not only support a filibuster against infringement of the 2A he'd lead it. Will paste it when I get home.

More pointedly you don't get to debate an reinterpret the bill of rights. If you want to change it you do it through the ammendment process. This whole thing is ******** and we shouldn't be standing for it.

He has no assurance they lack the votes. Don't appreciate rolling the dice.

 

[tacmedic]

Also Reid can end the debate at any point and call for a vote. He doesn't have to let the opposition argue their side.

 

[n2sooners]

The debate phase of the process is where the merits, and even the Constitutionality, of legislation can, and are intended to be, discussed. Not every issue is clearly defined, so it's a little hard to pre-judge every piece of legislation and not even allow it to the floor for debate.

His "yes" vote simply lets the bill come forward to be seen in the light of day, it's not a vote of support for the bill itelf. It also allows the final votes for or against the bill to be seen and be a permanent part of the voting record of every Senator.

Two problems I have with this. First, Harry Reid hasn't exactly been known for his straight shooting and allowing debate to actually take place. They frequently stack the deck to prevent the opposition from presenting any amendments and then have a vote to force the bill through with as little debate as possible. Second, once again a bill was voted on which practically no one has seen. How can you decide if a bill should be filibustered or brought to the floor if you haven't even seen it, let alone had time to read it? I support filibustering any bill that hasn't even been finalized and given to those who are being asked to vote for or against it.

When a bill hasn't been allowed to be seen the media can say it says anything they want it to say. Just like they are saying that the background check agreement would only require background checks on commercial sales and not personal sales which we all know has to be a lie because commercial sales on the internet and at gun shows already require background checks.

 

[okdkranch]

I called his office twice and sent 2 letters on this issue starting weeks ago. All the responses including the two signed by him were that he would support expanded background checks. To me, this is just another nibble at the second ammendment and anybody who supports it simply does not understand the meaning of "shall not be infringed".